Michael D. Scott

"At the end of every month the five top ranked books over all time are delivered to the desks of an editorial board made up of international HarperCollins editors. The board read at least 10,000 words and deliver feedback to the author’s authonomy profile."

That's what Harper Collins said, right.

The silly boys on the Authonomy forum were commenting on a test posting made by a member named Laura some 18 months ago. - I took it upon myself to investigate what other 'comments' Laura had made.


Here's an example. . .

"A remarkable, thoughtful opening with some interesting imagery. I was reminded of Allende in the first chapter, something about the care taken in observing each character's thoughts and dialogue, and the seamless way the narrative creeps up on several characters in the space of a chapter. Would anyone agree?

I like Jane a lot- very refreshing to see such a strong female character in a piece of fiction set in this era (early C20th) and the mystery surrounding her engaged me really quickly. Is she a spy? On the run?

I thought the language was crisp and considered, certainly not a first draft. I would say that in places the descriptions are a little over done: the instance which springs to mind is when Jane "placed her backside carefully upon the smooth mahogany balustrade". It's not offensive as a sentence by any any means- I just felt the pudding was overegged slightly."

I compared this comment with some of the recent Editors reviews of the top 5. The reviewer seemed to be obsessed with the representation of female characters, refer to current authors, and often the recipient was left with the impression, the reviewer wanted a different book.


Here's an excerpt of review of "The IT Refugee."


"I think intentionally the author wants to show that, amidst a backdrop of war and suffering, women still have the same issues of career, love, shopping etc. but I don’t think the reader would see it that way. There is one particular scene where Maya is sunbathing in a bikini whilst Israeli helicopters circle above. Whilst this may genuinely happen (and may be second nature to women in a country dogged by war), I think readers (conscious of the suffering seen in the press concerning the region) may find this hard to believe. These women are in a fortunate strata of society and it is difficult to envisage this sort of lifestyle existing alongside one of abject poverty. These women are not what we would consider stereotypical refugees; some may find this the main strength of the novel but I found that it jarred and made the narrative slightly unbelievable."

Taking into account the age of the reviewer, and the reviews were written 18 months apart. I have come to the conclusion these 'comments' were written by the same person.

Further research reveals that "Laura" is not a member of Harper Collins Editorial board and has as musch influence with the commissioning editor as I do.

If all this is correct; there is no Ed's desk, and the review is written by one inexperienced and unqualified.