3 ms·
it's shady because they are pretending to be a specific person writing something, which they are not. I would not be surprised if the picture shown has nothi
by zzzeek 4y ago
it's shady because they are pretending to be a specific person writing something, which they are not. I would not be surprised if the picture shown has nothing to do with who actually writes those reviews.
> If the reviews are adding value (and according to the OP they seem to be), is it much shadier than the Paris Review or the New York Review of Books?
yes because the source producing the review is bogus in this case. Reading book reviews from your (assumed to be a non-famous literary critic!) brother in law vs. a famous book reviewer are two different kinds of value add.
- stinkytaco 4y agoNow straying far off the topic, how about when this goes the other way around? When authors attach their names to books they do not write (e.g. James Patterson with <name in much smaller type>) or who might not even be alive (V.C. Andrews or Robert Ludlum)? This actually reminds me of "Richard Bachman" which was Steven King using a pen name and fake picture which I think was striving for the opposite effect.
- neodypsis 4y agoWould an NLP model be able to write a book or reviews of books?
- stinkytaco 4y agoIt would not at all surprise me it if it was revealed James Patterson or V.C. Andrews were NLP models all along.
- zzzeek 4y ago> When authors attach their names to books they do not write (e.g. James Patterson with <name in much smaller type>) or who might not even be alive (V.C. Andrews or Robert Ludlum)? I would say that is lame, but the actual writer's name is still there. it's not untraceable like a random profile on the internet. When we see these celebrity books that are written by someone else, I dont think there's any confusion among those who actually care to know, that "book X was written by a ghost writer". if celebrity X is claiming, "I wrote that book myself!" when they didn't, they are lying, and yes that is bad.