Top 50 Reviewer Amos Lassen’s Fall From Amazon …..by Rick R. Reed

62 comments

• 

  This makes me sick to my stomach. I’ve heard about Amos before, but only in passing and I have never really heard the whole story. It doesn’t really surprise me that people would go to such lengths, even to fabricating evidence, but its so sad. I’ve been disillusioned for quite a while at the forums, reviews and such at Amazon, mostly just at how uncaring people are. As if, hidden behind the veil of the internet, they feel invulnerable.

  I already try to buy directly from the publishers when I can, but maybe this is the push I need to stop buying from Amazon altogether…

• 

  I was hoping that by the time this posted, there would be at least some official explanation from Amazon, but it appears not. The Facebook page supporting Amos continues to grow…

• 

  Thanks Cole you just wrote most of my reply for me!

  There was a very very unpleasant Amazon review posted recently of Josh Lanyon’s( FREE ! ) The Dickens With Love;it has been removed now,but clearly there are strange people out there.

  Though I suppose -to paraphrase someone else- is it worse when somebody you dislike enjoys the same books as you?

  I will definitely check out Amos’s reviews on his own blog.Thanks for bringing this situation to my notice.

• 

  I haven’t been reading reviews on Amazon much lately – the TBB list is waaay too long. If I saw an Amos Lassen review, I always read it – I knew that they would be thoughtful and fair. I may not always agree but I took his opinions seriously.

  One of the things I hate most about Amazon reviews is the people who give a 1 star review because they never received the merchandise or got a damaged copy.

• 

  Amazon runs a dirty house. Unfortunate but all too true.

  First they deleted all those GLBT books and then tried to backpedal and say it was “an accident.” A very pointed accident, it seems.

  Then the whole thing with them removing books with content they don’t like (after they claimed they don’t censor…rolling eyes)…and I’ll veer off a moment here, because I fully support them removing ILLEGAL content. When I write to them about removing something, it’s either pirated or otherwise illegal. As long as the content is legal, Amazon has NO BUSINESS removing content. Yes, they are a company and therefore able to say what they will/will not carry, but then they can’t hide behind the lie that they don’t censor. Obviously, they try to really hard. Can’t have it both ways, Amazon.

  And now this… The reviewer system is one of the most corrupt things at Amazon, which is sad, because it could do so much good.

  Years ago, an “accidental” release of legal names of reviewers showed that they had a whole passel of them that were either marking down competitors’ books or marking up their own and books of friends. Authors doing this. Clearly, there was a conflict of interest there.

  Then you had the dust up (ongoing after all this time) of Amazon reviewers being compensated (even paid) for reviews.

  Then you had the attacks (these were easy to see) where someone would post clearly inaccurate information about books in a review. Hand up. I’ve had to deal with this type before. Some even libel the authors and make personal attacks on the authors instead of the books. Does Amazon help? Who would believe they do?

  Then you had the attacks where people would mark down books and give bad reviews for things beyond the authors’ control, like lack of worldwide distribution, use of DRM, or no ebook version. Despite many suggestions for making this better, Amazon refuses to change the system to account for this.

  And now this. I wish I could say he’s the first reviewer with accusations thrown at him, but he’s not. There’s a reason I rarely review these days. It’s just not worth the hassle of dealing with the creeps in the world.

  I do support him and wish him luck!

  Oh, and to the idiot detractors… It is commonplace to copy or reword the blurb into a review. As long as that’s not all there is to a review, it’s fine. We give permission for that to reviewers, if we send books for review.

  Brenna

  • 

    Selena of eXcessica sent emails to those on her Yahoo group list to report Amazon has removed and is removing books containing incest.

    Carolina

• 

  Despicable!

• 

  For crying in the bucket! Why do people have to exert such energy into hating others? If you don’t like something don’t look at it! Thanks for sharing this Rick…and Go Team Amos!

• 

  How ridiculous! Amazon is on a seriously slippery slope here. As you say, they’re a business, there to make money, not to make our purchasing decisions for us.

  If they continue to treat people this way, then they’ll inevitably lose business. They’re not the only bookseller out there, not the only place people can post reviews.

  I’d like to be able to say they’re only hurting themselves. But unfortunately, they’re also hurting the readers and writers that they’re messing around.

  I hope they sort themselves out soon.

• 

  It made me SO angry to hear this. Mr. Lassen has reviewed some of my books, which is how I heard of him in the first place. I have enormous respect for his insight and opinions. I joined the Facebook page in support of him yesterday. I just hope that somehow, all of the outrage on his behalf will have some sort of impact on how Amazon does business. I don’t hold out too much hope for that, being the cynic that I am, but I’m crossing my fingers.

• 

  Actually, Amazon have every right to do as they’ve done, and more. That doesn’t make it sensible, or good business practice, or moral, or anything else, but they have the right. Their review pages are just that, theirs, and they can not only take down selected reviews, they can take ’em all down if they want to.

  As to them not being the only ones out there, no, they’re not – just the largest and most effectively marketed. Those last two items are not unrelated… and they’ve worked hard to carry out the expectations that their marketing has created.

  I don’t have to like some of the things they’ve done – and I don’t – but they’ve broken no laws and only time will tell if they lose market share as a result of their actions.

  • 

    Steve,
    I think you’re absolutely right. But I do think there’s a responsibility to call them out when they’ve done something wrong, whether or not calling them on their actions will or would have any effect remains to be seen.

• 

  Steve,

  I think what you’re missing is that Amazon is playing both sides of the fence. They can hardly claim not to be censoring when they choose to censor. I already said that, as a business, they CAN choose what they want to sell or not (within LEGAL limits, of course…they can’t sell illegal content), but they cannot claim to take everything and then censor. At the very least, that smacks of bait and switch, false advertising… Name your poison. Several different titles apply.

  Not to mention, they CLAIM that they won’t allow delivery and availability comments in ratings, but they allow them, and they won’t remove them. Working both sides of the fence again. I personally suggested to them that they have two separate ratings on items. One for availability/delivery, which would include DRM and ebook versions, and the other would be JUST product review. They won’t do it. So yes…I find them falling short of advertised here.

  Brenna

• 

  Very sad to hear, just glad we can catch his reviews elsewhere.

• 

  This upsets me greatly. To see this type of behavior from a company without talking to the one accused first is completely out of line and bad business.

  I’m so glad all these reviews will still be available for the public in another location though. The LGBT community deserves a great reviewer for their literature so the word gets out there.

  For Amazon to pull this shit is well…unprofessional and offensive.

  -Tamsin

• 

  Very saddened by the way Mr Lassen has been treated.

• 

  I’ve read a number of Mr. Lassen’s reviews and found them to be well-written and well-thought out.
  I’m also a reviewer and as such, don’t understand the accusations against Amos, but the entire thing reeks of opportunism and slander.

  I too have joined the Facebook page supporting him and I’m very glad that he has another outlet for his reviews.
  Honestly, what is wrong with people that jealousy and ignorance can rule big business.
  I would buy from Amazon when I couldn’t find the books from the original publisher; after all I’d prefer that more of my money goes to support the author rather than a business.
  And there have been a few things over the years about the two-faced way that they do business… not something that I’m eager to support.

  So to Amos Lassen, you have another fan and supporter, and Rick,thank you for a very well-thought out post. And Wave, thank you for having such an amazing place.

• 

  Amazon lost my business a long time ago, right around the time they ‘accidentally’ delisted all gay and lesbian books. After this latest moronic event I have even removed the Amazon buy links from my book pages. People can still buy from Amazon — I hope they don’t — but I will make it easier to buy from another source if they are looking at my site for buy links.

  It makes no sense to me — they yank all of one person’s reviews on the word of other reviewers but leave up obviously malicious reviews posted out of spite such as those 1 star reviews that were put up to punish publishers for wanting more money or control over their book releases. But then I guess those reviews benefited Amazon, since they had been forced to surrender those rights. So seeing all those 1-star reviews must have tickled them.

  I just hope instead of blustering and complaining people start putting their money where there mouth is and stop buying from Amazon. Even a tiny dip in sales will be unpleasant to them. So come one, people let’s buy our books somewhere else.

• 

  I echo so many of your voices and support Amos.

  Seems there will always be hate in the world which is rationalized in the haters’ minds as righteousness. It is sickening and scary.

  “What you spend years building, Someone could destroy overnight. Build anyway.” ~from a poem by Mother Theresa

• 

  Attention sluts and their schadenfreude. I think that’s what it comes down to. Nobody would be talking about any of these reviewers if this hadn’t happened, and it’s quite clear they enjoy the attention. They need to think about why they are really doing this and stop hanging it on some self-righteous “policemen of the net” nail.

• 

  Thanks for this info. I won’t be buying a kindle for Christmas!

• 

  Mr. Lassen was removed from Amazon after being shown to have, in fact, plagiarized nearly his entire catalog of reviews- including from other Amazon Reviewers- which is how it was discovered. You’ll note how he never mentions any of this, nor ever tried to mount a defense other than starting the FB page and encouraging supporters to attack the ones on Amazon who exposed him, myself included. If you’d care to see for yourself follow the link below; Amazon had been deleting many of the posts- including the nasty remarks Lassen had been making- but from pg 30 onwards you can see comparisons of some reviews he’d misappropriated along with the links to the original postings.
  http://www.amazon.com/tag/top%20reviewers/forum/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg30?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2Z5LRXMSUDQH2&cdPage=30&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3G2K48RKN2YEP

  John

• 

  Rick is right. Sorry for any misunderstandings. If you could, take my previous post down. In re-reading it, it sounds too angry anyway.

• 

  The facts in this case speak for themselves and have been documented ad nauseum. The only manipulation in this unfortunate affair has been by one party. That party has systematically done everything that has been alleged and then berated and bullied other users that pointed this out. Amazon pulled Lassen’s reviews when over one hundred were proven to be violating terms of plagiarism and copyright infringement. I’m sorry if this negatively affected anyone, but it’s a fact.

  Lassen’s supporters continued to be manipulated by half truths and outright lies. Lassen accuses others of “mocked up reviews that I did not write and used them for evidence” which is (A) patently false and (B) a seeming admission to the truth of the plagiarism charges.

  Every instance of a charge was accompanied by side by side comparisons to the original text. Lassen would have you believe that a small rogue group has masterminded some sort of coup–but in fact, as more and more false reviews became exposed it grew. DVD Talk had copied reviews pulled, cineamatraction actively sought a solution to their reviews pulled. Lassen borrowed from too many sources to illuminate in this brief message.

  I understand that this note will not be posted or met with derision, but the facts are the facts in this case. Hate Amazon all you want–but in light of the evidence and the truths that only get presented from a very skewed angle at these posts, Amazon was actually taking action so as to not be complicit in wrongdoing. How many times does the company have to be shown evidence and remove reviews (taken by sources as readily available as the New York Times) before their allowed to protect themselves.

  The only on-going issue is the further manipulation of the facts to make this a hate crime as opposed to a black and white issue of Lassen’s hand caught in the cookie jar.

  For all this impartial reporting, I find it curious that no one actually researches the charges and evidence that caused a company the size of Amazon to make this decision. You really think two or three individuals had that power. Sorry, where there’s smoke there’s fire.

• 

  Here is one of the most explicit examples in the “Maedchen in Uniform.” The original source, link, copyright, and review is posted from 2003. Lassen’s Amazon review from 2010 follows in its entirety. He posted it 3 times on Amazon–it was not mocked up by a hate monger.

  http://homepages.sover.net/~ozus/maidensinuniform.htm
  REVIEWED ON 6/13/2003 GRADE: B-
  Dennis Schwartz: “Ozus’ World Movie Reviews”
  © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DENNIS SCHWARTZ

  An emotionally draining melodrama with an all-female cast. It’s about an authoritarian Prussian boarding school for the daughters of officers and the bourgeoisie, whose idealogical aim is to strengthen character through strict discipline and blind obedience. It is directed by a former Austrian stage actress Leontine Sagan with sympathy for the girls’ plight and to show how their friendship warded off their oppression. It is based on a play by Christa Winsloe. The outcry against the unmerciful authoritarian Prussian educational system (a precursor to fascism) is apparent, as its subtle argument is mainly seen through the sharp visual expressionist images (such as a winding school staircase used only by staff and guests, but off-limits to the girls).
  The story revolves around a vulnerable and sensitive 14-year-old orphan, Manuela von Meinhardis, whose aunt places her in the school and the popular teacher, Fräulein von Bernburg, who is more tender and loving than other staff members and therefore gains the affections of all the students. The girls are desperate for some affection (they await her nightly kisses on their forehead before bedtime with eagerness). Von Bernburg offers Manuela her love in opposition to the school’s policy of forming no emotional attachments with the students. This love is hinted at as more than motherly, and directly opposes the icy sterness of the martinet principal Fräulein von Oberin. The student-teacher relationship leads to but never goes that far as to show it as an active lesbian physical one, except for lots of warm touches and a warm kiss on the lips of Manuela by the teacher.

  The principal has bad feelings for the unhappy Manuela and through various disciplinary ploys acts to squash the girl who has a crush on the only staff member who is concerned about her well being. When removed from performing in the school’s Don Carlos play and forced to be isolated from her teacher, the melancholy Manuela attempts suicide. It is only the concern of the other girls that saves her. It certainly was a film with a lesbian theme and one of the earliest to hit on that topic, probably as many critics have said a precursor to a call for a radical lesbian agenda. “Mädchen” suffers because its strident style is passe, though its content is still provocative and the film is a more sweeping indictment against their oppressive country than it is a film just about lesbianism. The fearful girls who are kept in check by the discipline they are under don’t complain openly but try to smuggle out letters (letter-writing has been banned) telling how the school is starving them. The film’s value remains as both a rare film about women’s issues and as an historical record of Germany in the 1930s. It also shows how the Weimar Republic reacted to homosexuality, or at least brought that issue to the public’s attention in a constructive way without silly melodramatics. What struck me as being particularly eerie, was the school’s striped uniforms looking similar to the ones worn by the concentration camp inmates.

  The film was originally banned in Germany and because of increasing government pressure on director Leontine Sagan, she became an exile two years after the film was completed. The theme of how depressed conditions were in Germany as love was squashed and the only way out seemed to be suicide, gave the film a power that still resonates.

  Lassen’s Amazon Review:
  “It is an emotionally draining melodrama with an all-female cast about an authoritarian Prussian boarding school for the daughters of officers and the bourgeoisie. The school’s ideological aim is to strengthen character through strict discipline and blind obedience. Directed by a former Austrian stage actress Leontine Sagan, the film shows sympathy for the girls’ plight and to show how their friendship warded off their oppression. Concern about the unmerciful authoritarian Prussian educational system was a precursor to fascism is apparent,
  The story revolves around a vulnerable and sensitive 14-year-old orphan, Manuela von Meinhardis, whose aunt places her in the school and the popular teacher, Fraulein von Bernburg, who is more tender and loving than other staff members and therefore gains the affections of all the students. The girls are desperate for some affection. Von Bernburg offers Manuela her love in opposition to the school’s policy of forming no emotional attachments with the students. This love is hinted at as more than motherly, and directly opposes the icy sternness of the martinet principal Fraulein von Oberin. The student-teacher relationship leads to but never goes that far as to show it as an active lesbian physical one, except for lots of warm touches and a warm kiss on the lips of Manuela by the teacher.
  The principal has bad feelings for the unhappy Manuela and through various disciplinary ploys acts to squash the girl who has a crush on the only staff member who is concerned about her well being. When removed from performing in the school’s Don Carlos play and forced to be isolated from her teacher, the melancholy Manuela attempts suicide. It is only the concern of the other girls that saves her.
  It certainly was a film with a lesbian theme and one of the earliest to deal with it and it seems to be a call for a radical lesbian agenda. However, he film suffers due to its strident passé style, though its content is still provocative and the film is a more sweeping indictment against their oppressive country than it is a film just about lesbianism. The fearful girls who are kept in check by the discipline don’t complain openly but try to smuggle out letters telling how the school is starving them. The film’s value remains as both a rare film about women’s issues and as an historical record of Germany in the 1930s. It also shows how the Weimar Republic reacted to homosexuality, or at least brought that issue to the public’s attention in a constructive way without silly melodramatics. What struck me as being particularly eerie, was the school’s striped uniforms looking similar to the ones worn by the concentration camp inmates.
  The film was originally banned in Germany and because of increasing government pressure on director Leontine Sagan, she became an exile two years after the film was completed. The theme of how depressed conditions were in Germany as love was squashed and the only way out seemed to be suicide, gave the film a power that is still there.”

  • 

    Thanks for sharing that, Kyle. I have to agree that it IS pretty damning…and I would love to hear some explanation for how this could have happened, other than the obvious one.

    • 

      Thank you Rick for allowing this to be posted and to being receptive that there is another side to this drama. This is the FIRST place where Lassen has begun the story to allow an alternate viewpoint to be expressed.

      This is not a matter that began as vengeful or through jealousy, and it’s not a small vigilante group. There is a varied cross section of individuals (ever growing), including writing professionals, who have entered the fray from a legal point of view. This all began when 3 Amazon reviewers, in a very short amount of time, came forward to say that Lassen had taken some of their reviews to use in his own. Instead of an apology, he lashed out with venom. This is what caused the issue to be pushed further and Lassen’s reviews to be looked at more intently. If he’d have just done a mea culpa, I’d have just rolled my eyes and chalked it up to more Amazon gamesmanship.

      To date, there are more reviews than one can count that have come into question. To be fair, most out right copyright infringement is in the world of film. For books, the pattern is more of a reworking of other sources. However, most of Lassen’s reviews on gay literature seem to be originally worded and that is clearly where he has found his support–from authors and readers who appreciated that dedicated voice. If Lassen had removed the offending reviews, his stellar support of all the LGBT books would still be on Amazon. He, unfortunately, pushed it into an all or nothing situation with Amazon and now wants to be positioned a victim. It was always his choice.

      Just yesterday Lassen bragged on his support page “By the way today’s mail brought 67 books and 17 movies and UPS is on its way with three more packages.” I don’t know about you, but I couldn’t knock such an extensive list off in such a timely manner and review it all. Is it so hard to believe the evidence when you’re obligation to reviewing is so time consuming? Shortcuts were taken and instead of apologies and corrections, so a childish war of words was waged on both sides. But no matter which side you fall on–nothing, unfortunately, changes the facts.

      • 

        Kyle

        Thank you Rick for allowing this to be posted and to being receptive that there is another side to this drama. This is the FIRST place where Lassen has begun the story to allow an alternate viewpoint to be expressed.

        On this site I always allow opposiing viewpoints on issues, and the point I make to everyone who posts here is that commenters should be polite and respect others.

        There are many posts with which I might disagree but everyone has a right to their opinion as long as it’s not vicious or slander. I have posted on topics with which many others disagreed and they have had opportunities to state their points of view because I think in our society too many people have been denied the opportujnity to say their piece.

        In this case I only just found out about Amos vs Amazon recently although I had heard of him obviously. Unfortunately I have not had the time or opportunity to research any of the information in this case, on both sides.

        As a reviewer myself I take a dim view of anyone plagiarizing my reviews, so if Amos has indeed done what you indicate he has, and the evidence in the instance you quoted seems pretty straightforward, then he should come forward and state his case.

        BTW what were the posted dates for both reviews? That would make an open and shut case in this particular instance.

        Thanks for commenting Kyle and do drop by again. 🙂

    • 

      You won’t get one. Lassen’s entire campaign has been to attack and cuss out everyone who challenges him. As you’re now a skeptic don’t expect a warm response.

    • 

      Thank you, Mr. Reed, for being gracious enough to post this. The true victims in this entire event are the reviewers who had their work stolen by Mr. Lassen and the unknowing authors whose books were associated with plagiarized reviews. I have a great deal of sympathy for them and hope that others will read and write honest, original reviews for those books.

• 

  I agree that, if that review is indeed one Amos put up and the other is someone else’s review (and not him paraphrasing himself on another site under another name, which I’ve seen happen before…heck I’ve done it before…used variations of a review I wrote on a couple of sites), it looks bad. ASSUMING … of course, that Amos’s came second and it’s not the other plagiarizing off of him (I notice there is no date on the one reported to be Amos’s).

  Not that I’m knocking down your argument. I just never assume what is presented to me is true, just because someone says it is. IF this is accurate, I’ll agree it doesn’t look good for Amos.

  If it was just the opening, it might be assumed they were both paraphrasing the book blurb, which wouldn’t be odd at all. But the entire thing looks too close to attribute to anything but someone copying from someone.

  I am still not happy with Amazon lately…and certainly not with Amazon’s review system. But this issue is fast becoming one that isn’t as cut and dried as the other issues.

  Brenna

  • 

    Thank you for being open to the idea that there may be more to this situation than has previously been brought to light, Brenna. I never assume what I read to be true either, until I have looked into it personally.

    As far as not being happy with Amazon, I share that feeling on several issues. Actually, this action by Amazon is one of the very few I agree with lately.

• 

  First of all, you well know that I’m not used to comment around if not for very important things, and I think this is one of this occasion. Plus I have a great respect for Rick and Wave and so I trust this site. Second, I think my silence was noticed, since I received more than one mails asking me why I wasn’t taken a position. Basically I don’t want to take a position.

  As an Amazon top reviewers myself, I had the chance to read both side of the story (btw I think anyone can if they are able to search the Amazon forums). I read all the evidences the reviewers on Amazon presented against Amos Lassen, and I can hardly believe them, since they are so “evident” that I cannot imagine Amos Lassen simply coping and pasting reviews from other people without neither changing a word. But it’s what those evidences are saying: in my naivite, I want to think that some mistake really happened, that maybe someone really hacked Amos Lassen’s account (and I’m not saying it was someone of who is now accusing Amos, maybe it was someone completely different). I can believe that maybe he did read other reviews and borrowed some idea, some point, something. But my idea is that, if he did so, it was only in the last year, maybe for the pressure to read and review as much as possible. I had the same pressure some time ago, but I decided that it was not possible to manage: only in the month of November I received more than 150 books to review and more than 100 are still in my reading list, with all my good will, I cannot read more than 4/5 books per week. I sent an email to all the publishers that are sending me books: I told them it was unlikely I was able to read all the books and so if they wanted they could stop to send me books to review; only 1 complained all the others said it was ok, what I can read I read, what I cannot I will not. Same for the authors, if they want to send me a book, I advice them that it will take me a bit to read it.

  One thing I’m sure of, there is wrong on both side, since they are fighting in blogs and FB and Amazon forums, despite the drama they are creating: Amos Lassen was removed by Amazon, his posting privileges as well, he has opened another blog. Why we cannot stop here? Amos will build his blog, he will post his reviews, he will maybe felt less pressured and will enjoy what he does. Remember that reviewing books is not something that make your living, it’s something you do since you enjoy movies and books, and if Amos in doing so is helping the LGBT community, it’s even better, for him and for all the community.

  I’m sure no one will like this comment, but this is what I feel in this moment.

  Thank you, Elisa

  • 

    Hi Elisa
    Thank you for commenting.

    As I mentioned to Rick in an email earlier, I never realized that reviewing on Amazon was so dangerous. 🙁

    I agree that this situation for whatever reason has become vitriolic and probably we will never know whether Amazon and Amos had any two way communication to resolve the issue. As outsiders we can only go by what we read and the facts as presented, and they seem to be weighted in one direction.

    I’ve been too busy to post reviews on Amazon or check out the various communities. I have read about a few situations where reviewers’ personal information was accessed and they were threatened because they posted negative reviews, so I decided that unless asked, I wasn’t going to post any more reviews on Amazon.

    I don’t really care about the ‘prestige’ of being an Amazon reviewer since that doesn’t pay the rent or the electricity bill. Maybe I’m missing out on what being associated with Amazon means in real terms.

• 

  Thank you Brenna for your graciousness and Wave for your willingness to look at both sides. This is the most hospitable site I’ve encountered about this issue. Lassen’s above review on Maedchen was posted earlier this year to three places on Amazon. With every fiber of my being, I agree that we should be at an endpoint to this discussion–both sides are aggressively and pointlessly carrying on. But the notion that someone hacked Lassen’s Amazon’s account and dreamt up hundreds of reviews is preposterous. (And if you are taking that defense, then you are supporting that the plagiarism charges are true….it can’t be both ways.)

  I won’t belabor the point here and thank you once again, but I’ll leave you with a review that DVD Talk had stricken from Amazon for the DVD ‘Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Süss.’ I’m presenting the side by side comparisons as well as DVD Talk’s response about the matter. Lassen’s review was posted in November and removed at the request of DVD Talk.

  Jason Bailey, DVD Talk, 3/2/10:Granddaughter Jessica Jacoby argues
  that he had to have been aware of the power of his imagery. But Korber
  trots out the old chestnut, “He had many Jewish friends!” Son Caspar
  Harlan deems it irrelevant: “The non-anti-Semite is the best person to
  sharpen the knives.” What can be certain, it is duly noted, is that he
  had no qualms with putting his actress wife into the film. Would he
  have put the woman he loves front and center if he considered it such
  a vile project? Harlan viewed himself a victim in the years after the
  war, and he fell out of favor, though he continued to make a living
  grinding out “sentimental and gloomy melodramas.”

  Lassen: Granddaughter Jessica Jacoby argues that he had to have been
  aware of the power of his imagery. But Korber tells us that “some of
  his best friends were Jewish” (which in itself is an anti-Semitic
  statement). Son Caspar Harlan deems it irrelevant: “The
  non-anti-Semite is the best person to sharpen the knives.” What can be
  certain, it is duly noted, is that he had no qualms with putting his
  actress wife into the film. Would he have put the woman he loves front
  and center if he considered it such a vile project? Harlan viewed
  himself a victim in the years after the war, and he fell out of favor,
  though he continued to make a living by filming “sentimental and
  gloomy melodramas.”

  DVD Talk: Director Felix Moeller generously sprinkles in clips, from
  not only the film in question and the rest of Harlan’s filmography,
  but horrifying newsreels from the era and home movies of the
  well-to-do filmmaker and his family.

  Lassen: Director Felix Moeller generously sprinkles in clips, from not
  only the film in question and the rest of Harlan’s filmography, but
  horrifying newsreels from the era and home movies of the well-to-do
  filmmaker and his family.

  DVD Talk: As intriguing as the details and discussions of the film
  itself may be, Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Süss is most fascinating
  as a tricky examination of their difficult family dynamic. “There’s
  something in the psyche of our family,” one of them notes, and they’re
  right–some disown him, some embrace him, some don’t know what to make
  of him. His son Thomas is an outspoken critic of his father, causing
  other members of the family to speak more scornfully of Thomas than of
  Veit. These are complex, these familial issues, and they branch out
  and spread; early on in the film, I thought I recognized a niece’s
  name, then shrugged it off as coincidence. Turns out it wasn’t–his
  niece is Christiane Kubrick, the widow of Stanley Kubrick. Late in the
  film, she says she took her husband to meet her uncle. Kubrick, she
  recalls, was “shaken” by the experience.

  Lassen: As intriguing as the details and discussions of the film
  itself may be, “Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Süss” is fascinating as a
  tricky examination of their difficult family dynamic. “There’s
  something in the psyche of our family,” one of them notes, and they’re
  right–some disown him, some embrace him, some don’t know what to make
  of him. Son Thomas is an outspoken critic of his father, causing other
  members of the family to speak more scornfully of Thomas than of Veit.
  These are complex, these familial issues, and they branch out and
  spread. An interesting fact is that Harlan’s niece is Christiane
  Kubrick, the widow of Stanley Kubrick. She says that she took her
  husband to meet her uncle. Kubrick, she recalls, was “shaken” by the
  experience.

  DVD Talk’s response which resulted in the immediate removal by Amazon of this particular review:

  From: John S
  Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:36 AM
  Subject: Re: Fwd: Your review of Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Süss

  Thanks for letting us know that someone was plagiarizing our reviews. I’ll contact Amazon. In the past they’ve been quick to respond to complaints about copied work. Unfortunately, this has happened a few times with Amazon reviewers, and MANY times with bloggers. (I had one girl tell me that I didn’t understand the way the Internet worked. According to her, adding a byline to an article just means that you found it on the web and that it’s perfectly alright to do that. *sheesh*)

  I really appreciate that you brought this to my attention,

  John

  • 

    This all makes me very sad and deeply troubled.

• 

  Mr. Lassen
  I’m sure you have been following the thread on this post since you were aware that Rick Reed was writing it. You will have seen the evidence others have presented on this site, which seems to call into question some of the statements you have made.

  It would be a wonderful gesture on your part if you were to refute these allegations with facts. Rick Reed, for whom I have the greatest respect and who I regard as someone with the utmost integrity, has staunchly defended you and put himself on the line on your behalf. I think it’s time for you to come forward rather than have Rick continue to try and defend you.

• 

  Rick, I’m with you here. Sad and troubled 🙁 Not that my feelings about Amazon in general have really changed at this point, for various reasons, but yeah. Very sad here.

  Kyle and John, one thing you can always be sure of here at Wave’s blog is a fair hearing and a courteous discussion. That’s why so many of us hang out here!

• 

  As a gay man, an Amazonian, and a top reviewer, I have followed this circus since its inception. I know that to be represented on Amazon with favorable reviews is invaluable to our community. But unfortunately, Amos is in the wrong. I read the evidentiary threads and all of the comments before they were deleted. The facts were kept silent outside of Amazon for obvious reasons. I, too, have never weighed in on the discussion for fear of vitriolic retribution against my reviews and my person. It was perhaps a coward’s decision, but I let my own self-interest conflict with standing up for the truth.

  I don’t think Amos’s books reviews on LGBT subjects were wholly compromised, but many other reviews were. I prayed every day that Amos would end his part of the charade and let the noise die down, but it never happened. The discourse, by both sides, was offensively juvenile and a blight on our community. At one point, the issue seemed to have ended but and it was Amos that once again poked the bear. If Amos had taken the high road and deleted anything in question, everyone would still be happy and Amos could have continued in a new and improved way. All the reviews were eventually done in by ego in the face of overwhelming evidence.

  I am sure that this voice will be unpopular, but I don’t want to compromise the values of integrity and honesty for some perception of a greater good. We need strong voices who aren’t afraid to admit poor decisions and own up to correcting them. Ultimately, as this never happened, I support Amazon’s decision wholeheartedly. It’s a shame because it didn’t have to go down this way. But the misdirections continue on a daily basis and no one seems willing to put this to bed and learn from what happened. Amos’s statement in this article proves just that point.

  My email was used to post so if either Wave or Rick wants more info, I am open to providing it. My love/hate relationship with Amazon notwithstanding, there is no debating the facts.

• 

  I am not asking Rick or anyone else to defend me. I wrote my reviews in good faith as I have always done and I was charged by these people in the cruelest of ways and was abused daily by them, all day long. There are ways to speak to people and I do not talk down to anyone. I was not only spoken down to but made fun of, my employers were contacted and these people went beyond all rational action. In the forty something pages of discussion, if you find more than ten comments from me that is something.I lashed out when I could take no more–for two months I had listened to their name calling and took their abuse and harassment. I also have great respect for Rick and I have seen what these people do and can do. Despite their evidence, I deny their charges. Their actions were inexcusable and I might add that there is a recent post from Jason Kirkfield that states that now that I am gone, one of them can move up. They have admitted doing the same to Harriet Klausner and Grady Harp who were smart enough to ignore them. I did not and so I had to go.
  All of you are free to believe what you want but I know myself. I also believe that there were ulterior motives that they had and I watched them gloat. Kirkfield has also stated that his wish for a happy holiday is to see me gone. Did they mention that they accused me of making death threats, that they threatened me with retraining orders, etc. This is all totally irrational behavior as everyone that knows me will say. When I used the words apes and gorillas in a review, I was accused of a racial slur. They may find what is missing in their lives but what a price they had to pay.I have never been contacted by anyone that had anything to do with what I reviewed that accused me of anything yet a bunch of reviewers took it upon themselves to right the world. And by the way, they have already decided who they are going after next.

• 

  I think I’ve just fallen into a trap that is very easy to make. We all want to root for the little guy and damn the man. I have to admit to already being disillusioned by Amazon, so I naturally assumed they were at fault. I’ll not pass judgement again, for either side, no matter how damning this new evidence seems to be.

  I just wanted to say to you Rick, that even the most brilliant people are sometimes deceived, whether this has been the case or not. I know I can speak for a lot of people here who think you’re brilliant and passionate, which is why we love you and why we also hope you’re feeling better and resting up well.

  • 

    I’m with you 100% Cole.

    Rick has always fought for “the little guy” and I do enjoy his passion which is why I love his books. Very few writers produce such gripping horrors.

    If he has been deceived here then so have most of us who don’t know the facts of the case.

    Now I have to get me some of that red velvet cake. 🙂

• 

  I just want to say that Amos reviewed my book a few weeks after it came out and the review was clearly not plagiarized. I’m sorry the review is gone. Regardless, of where the truth lies or what people’s motivations are, an entire community of GLBT writers and readers has been damaged by the removal of his reviews. And I think that’s very sad.

  • 

    Marshall, what you said was really what my bottom line is and the motivating force for me wanting to write this piece.

    And Cole, thanks so much for your kind words! I’m doing very well, thanks!

    Wave: I hope you’re sharing.

  • 

    Marshall

    Regardless, of where the truth lies or what people’s motivations are, an entire community of GLBT writers and readers has been damaged by the removal of his reviews. And I think that’s very sad.

    As you said, therein lies the pity of it all. I understand that writers need reviews to help sell their books and that is now lost in the case of Amos’s reviews, at least on Amazon. However, I believe all of his reviews will be available on another site in a few days so that problem will be resolved.

• 

  A few others have already directed you to the Amazon thread which explains how much of this happened.

  For those wanting to see some specifics along with dates, I’ve just published my own accounting of the events (I hope you don’t mind links). My post includes screen shots, so others can’t say I doctored the evidence in any way.

  I should also mention that I’m a latecomer to all of this and only toppled into the fray by chance. I don’t know Amos Lassen or any of the other reviewers. I only wrote about it because: 1) I know how it feels to have your words stolen; and 2) it turns my stomach that those Amazon reviewers are being painted as homophobic anti-Semites.

  Having read through all 33 pages of the forum thread, it’s fairly clear that they only cared about having Lassen’s *infringing* work removed. Many would have been fine to let him stay and keep reviewing as long as he edited out the bits of his reviews which used another’s words.

  Thank you for allowing this other side of the story to be expressed.

  It truly is ashame for the GLBT community to lose a loud voice, but it’s Lassen’s own fault. I only hope that someone else, more ethical, will take up the reigns and continue where Lassen could not.

  • 

    Thanks for stopping by Ann

    As I said earlier in the post, I haven’t had the opportunity to read any of the background information because RL has been a bitch lately.

    As a reviewer it would really upset me if someone stole my intellectual property because that’s what it would be. I don’t know the facts in this case and I will be reading the information that you have linked.

    I’m hoping that the LGBT community does not end up the loser because of what has happened. That would be the worst casualty of this sad state of affairs.

• 

  Smoke and mirrors and you are all falling for Amos and his spin. The truth is that he was copying a lot of his reviews. Nobody had any sort of go about his sexual leanings or faith. Here’s a lift from one of the posts. Forget all the stuff you are being fed and judge for yourself…

  Neil Genzlinger, The New York Times (October 23, 2009):

  This one is aimed at those who find the mix of religious imagery, whippings, animal blood, amateurish cinematography and moronic dialogue to be arousing. It focuses on an all-male religious order whose members seem to spend no time in spiritual reflection but quite a lot of time groping one another.

  The head guy is Father Anthony (Wilson Hand, trying hard to look like Anthony Perkins), who years earlier killed another novitiate and stuck his body in a trunk in the basement. Now gutted animals are showing up on the front lawn, and a mysterious stranger is getting everyone all hot and bothered.

  It’s hard to imagine anyone watching this attempt at a horror film without guffawing. (Or maybe it’s supposed to be a comedy?)

  Amos Lassen (September 14, 2010):

  This film is aimed at those who find the mix of religious imagery, whippings, animal blood, amateurish cinematography and moronic dialogue to be arousing. It looks at an all-male religious order whose members seem to spend no time at all in spiritual reflection but quite a lot of time groping one another.

  The head guy is Father Anthony (Wilson Hand) who years earlier killed another novitiate and stuck his body in a trunk in the basement. Now gutted animals are showing up on the front lawn, and a mysterious stranger is getting everyone all hot and bothered.

  It’s hard to imagine anyone watching this attempt at a horror film without laughing and it is not a comedy.

  After TruthSeeker first busted Amos on this one back on November 10, Amos changed the words around in the first sentence (from his original lift of “This film is aimed at those who find the mix of religious imagery, whippings, animal blood, amateurish cinematography and moronic dialogue to be arousing. It looks at an all-male religious order whose members seem to spend no time at all in spiritual reflection but quite a lot of time groping one another” to a transposition of “Religious imagery, whippings, animal blood, amateurish and poor cinematography and weak dialogue are all here as well an all-male religious order whose members seem to enjoy groping each other more than spirituality” but he was too lazy (or probably too busy deleting other busted “reviews”) to bother with the rest. He probably got the other paragraphs from IMDb.

  • 

    Tweedy
    This seems to be pretty clear cut to me. Even though the jury is still out, like Rick I’m sad at this whole state of affairs.

    It’s too bad that the GBLT community will be the major casualty when all the dust settles.

    Thank you for coming by.

• 

  The thing is, without a neutral third party going over the evidence, it’s meaningless. Anyone can manipulate post dates. Anyone can photoshop a screenshot. Without having actual server logs and someone who knows how to look for evidence of them being altered, it’s all meaningless. How hard is it for me to open up a Blogspot or WordPress account, copy and paste one of Amos’s reviews on to it and then make the post date three years ago?

  • 

    But can the same be done with a NYT review? Or with reviews published directly to the Amazon website?

    I don’t know who’d go to such lengths to create an Amos Lassen Amazon account to duplicate every one of his reviews and find a way to hack their servers in order to manipulate the dates.

    ETA: Here are direct links from which I grabbed the screen shots and you will see they weren’t edited in any way by me, expect to highlight the actual content lifts:
    NYT review
    Amos Lassen’s review (it’s the third from last on the page)

  • 

    But William, there is a third neutral party that possessed all the evidence. That was Amazon legal which had every post, comment, and edit during this entire event recorded in its archives. And they made a ruling with that evidence. Bottom line.

• 

  I am going to say this–when Rick told me about this blog,I said great–I have not a thing to be afraid of and I still don’t. An Amazon third party was presented the evidence by this group therefore neutrality was not there. They contacted them, they presented what they had. Amazon never exchanged one word with me from the very beginning. The day all of this started, I notified Amazon and continued to do so every day as many as 15 times a day–not one email or phone call was answered or returned. I suffered abuse after abuse from these people. They did everything in their power to make me feel small. Finally it reached a point that I lashed back. They had been calling me Amos asif we were friends and I know none of these people. I was forwarded emails they sent out. I heard from writers they contacted, I was informed that Kirkfield discussed me with the president of the college where I taught–they overstepped every boundary and kept going. Kirkfield publicly stated that he would have a good holiday only after I was gone. Truthseeker ranted, Muzzlehatch gloated and “avoracius reader” spoke with the most evil tongue I have ever heard. It was obvious they were out for blood and would stop at nothing until they got it and so they went to a neutral party, Amazon legal and gave them the evidence they prepared. Did Amazon ever include me in anything? NO! The only thing I ever heard from Amazon is that my reviews were deleted and I could no longer post. Was I asked for a statement? NEVER. I reported Kirkfield when he called me a “cretin” publicly in the forum, when Nick Brett called me a “disgrace”, when E. Jacobs had a few choice words and when John Green decided the use of the word “ape” was a racial slur. Who are these people and why are they holier than God? They overstepped everything to get what they want and guess what? They are still gloating. Sure neutral–there was nothing neutral here nor were there two sides. They not only wrote with forked tongues, they showed us how small and petty they are. there was no justice here, there was no trial and like I said before they had decided how they were going to handle this entire affair. And now they gloat. Believe them if you want, let’s see how they handle their next one—read the forum, they have already discussed who it is to be. Since when to we live in a world that is controlled by vigilantes? This may be your world but it sure is not mine.

  • 

    Mr. Lassen,
    Why should Amazon be required to contact you before taking action when it was clear to them, when presented with evidence they could easily have ignored, that you violated their terms of use?

    Also, Amazon, regardless of who brought the evidence forward, did examine it clearly before making their decision. Why do I believe this? Look how long people have been reporting Harriet Klausner and she is still there chugging happily away.

    The difference, in your case, is that you borrowed the writings from different copyrighted sources without credit or permission in order to pad your own reviews.

    As I said in a comment on my blog, I’m not glad to see you fall even if it was your own fault. I don’t know you from Adam, and you may well be a very nice man in real life, and those people who reported you may be wolves in sheep’s clothing, but it would have been best for everyone had you just said mea culpa, apologized, and righted your wrongs.

    It truly saddens me that the GLBT and Jewish communities are included in the string of your unfortunate victims, even if they don’t yet know it.

    P.S. I’ll give it to you that being called a racist (when it’s not true) does sting and was uncalled for. Even being called a “cretin” crossed the line, but it pales in comparison to calling someone an “evil”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible piece of sh*t” and wanting to spit on her grave. As far as “disgrace” goes, I believe it perfectly reflects your actions–disgraceful. That’s just my opinion of course, feel free to disagree.

  • 

    The evidence was already there. Every posted review was the evidence. If these reviews could all be linked to outside sources, who is really at fault? Not the people pointing it out and not Amazon.

    With all due respect, once again, I’d never have said a word in this forum except for the inflammatory and misleading remarks that you contributed to start this discussion. Every unpleasant moment of this entire event has been fueled by a two party bickering–there is not one victim and one aggressor, no matter how one sided things are painted elsewhere. The facts have spoken for themselves.

• 

  I think everyone has had an opportunity to have their say on this matter and I would like to close off the comments now before they get ugly.

  We have all exhausted this topic and nothing new has been offered. So, please, I would appreciate it if we leave it there.

  Thank you for coming. I now know more about this matter than I ever wanted. 🙁 Good night.

• 

  of course you never said a word Kyle because you did not participate as Kyle—you used a fake name and profile and yes the evidence was there–you provided it and under a fake name. You were not even man enough to say who you were. And Ann-Kat, the review of “I Spit On Your Grave” came two months of constant harassment from these people and it was the way I lashed back. I do not believe that you would have taken the abuse and taunts that I took as many as 20 times on a daily basis and it was ok for Kirkfield to go to my employer as a representative of Amazon and post his findings? I wonder how you would have reacted. I doubt you would have reacted the way Lambda Literary reacted (ignoring and wondering who these people were) when Erin Elway and Barbara Barclay overstepped all bounds by writing letters and saying how much they respected the organization. Give me a break–these are cutthroat and ruthless people who wanted a crucifixion and would do whatever it took to get it. Sure I lashed out bit how much is one person to take? Mea culpa? No way. And what about the letters they wrote to universities and publishing houses? And what about the smear campaign? You weren’t there, you came in three or four days ago with your self-righteousness and as you say, you don’t know me–you only know what these people have presented you with. They gave you the leads and you followed. I would love to see how you would have reacted. They overstepped every boundary of humanity. And have you noticed, Jason Kirkfield has nothing to say nor does SE. Jacobs who admitted herself that this has gone too far. Since you mean to keep it going, so du I–just not here. You have new friends now–watch how they play ball and be careful, do not cross them.
  I have nothing else to add or to say. I am closing this down and hope all of you think very carefully as you enjoy your holiday season of what you have done. Remember evil begets evil and each of you will get yours one day.

  • 

    Thank you Mr. Lassen. As I said before, if there are any more comments I will delete them. I appreciate your cooperation and that of everyone else.

  • 

    Mr. Lassen, so did you or did you not write reviews by rephrasing product descriptions and copying other sources? You say you deny the charges, but you copied New York Times reviews. That’s ballsy.

    I’m just curious about your methods and why you thought no one would notice you copying such a prominent source? These days all it takes to find out if someone is plagiarizing is to just plug a sentence into Google. You should be relieved all you got was deleted. I would just turn off the computer for a while and enjoy real life. We’re talking about lost Amazon reviews. Your situation could have legally been worse. You’re being dragged through mud because intentional plagiarism is the highest offense for a writer. It’s laziness and it’s theft. I’m sorry some egos are having a field day with your name, but that’s what happens when a thief cries foul.

• 

  Guys
  I’m trying to be polite by asking that no one else post comments. I would very much appreciate it if anyone else who has anything to say on this matter could perhaps go to one of the Amazon forums. Thanks.

  Any new comments after Derrick R., other than Rick if he wants to say something, will be taken down.

  COMMENTS ON THIS POST ARE NOW CLOSED

Comments are closed.