The fur has really been flying lately at Amazon UK over reader reviews for Jean Harlow: Tarnished Angel by David Bret, which began popping up earlier this month.
Why all the hub-bub? Apparently, even more controversial than the author himself, are the accusations made by Bret that reviewers never actually obtained and read the book before offering negative feedback.
According to Bret, who on May 11 responded to a two-star review posted the same day:
"You are reviewing a book, you moron, which has not even been published! Serialisation has held back publication until after 14 May, so you cannot possibly have seen it. Reviewing a book before its time, let's hope you die prematurely too."
Oh dear.
Bret further clarified his point in the form of a five-star review of his own book, which has since been removed:
(Take heart Harlow reviewers, it's not just you. He also posted the only five-star review to his book on Morrissey, with some choice words about those fans, too.)
On May 12 he was apparently further compelled to make his point (in all caps no less, the equivalent of screaming on the internet) on the Amazon UK page for Stenn's biography of Clara Bow of all places, ignoring the page for Stenn's Harlow biography which would seem to be a more logical place to vent:
"WHILE I HAVE NO COMMENTS TO MAKE ABOUT THIS BOOK, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT FANS OF THIS AUTHOR ARE BEING VERY UNFAIR TO REVIEW MY BIOGRAPHY OF JEAN HARLOW, BAD REVIEWS WHICH BEGAN APPEARING 1ST MAY, PARTICULARLY AS THE BOOK IS UNDER EMBARGO (SERIALISATION) AND CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SEEN BY ANYONE UNTIL AT LEAST 14 MAY!!!"
Apparently several reviews posted before mid-May have mysteriously disappeared from Amazon's site after Bret's outbursts.
Yet, according to Amazon, the book's publication date from JR Books Ltd. was slated for April 16, 2009, a date that remains on the site today. If an embargo was put into place, someone forgot to tell their distributor.
One UK customer confirmed to The Platinum Page that she ordered the book in late April and was notified by Amazon that it would be dispatched by April 27 and delivered by May 2.
I asked one of the reviewers who posted his comments on May 4 (after ordering the book on April 27 and receiving it on May 1) to send me photographic proof that he owns a copy of Tarnished Angel. Here's what he promptly sent back:
Show me your Tarnish
Now, not having read Bret's book yet (making me Rennell's target audience) but having some knowledge of Harlow's life and personality, this piece left me feeling like I was having a 1965 flashback to Irving Shulman's highly fictionalized rendition that caused equal amounts of controversy back in the day.
On a side note, three paragraphs in, Rennell writes:
Maybe it's a UK thing, but I don't consider the American Film Institute, who ranked Harlow #22 in its Top 100 Legends, arcane. A simple Google search of her name yields 689,000 internet references. We should all be so forgettable. But I digress.
It's very easy for any knowlegable Harlow fan, myself included, to get caught up in reading or participating in a passionate online rhubarb over the actions and reputations of both the author and his subject. It's become practically unavoidable. And nothing of real value can be gained by simply highlighting the mudslinging. So what's the alternative here?
Call me crazy, but I say try to be objective and go on a fact finding mission.
I've previously read the Harlow biographies by both Stenn and Eve Golden, and after doing so conducted Q & A with each author in order to give readers insight into the logic of the authors' research and conclusions in their own words. I'm currently in the process of doing the same for author E. J. Fleming's new book Paul Bern: The Life and Famous Death of the MGM Director and Husband of Harlow, with the cooperation of his publisher, McFarland.
In the interest of the fairness that Bret has adamantly stated he's not been afforded, I recently emailed his publisher's publicity department to request a review copy of Tarnished Angel and a opportunity to conduct a professional, legitimate interview with Bret about his work.
The story here, when I look at it not as a Harlow fan but as an experienced journalist and researcher, isn't necessarily the content of the book or the author's reputation. Although that's certainly a part of it. It's more about finding out why and how the book was conceived and written, what is its purpose, how were conclusions made and what, if any, new information the book brings to the table.
The only person who can answer these types of questions, hopefully without the previously demonstrated anger and insults, is the author.
The offer is out. Will my request be granted? Stay tuned....
Great blog. Some stunning photos and interesting candid shots that I have never seen before.
Posted by: Kim | January 25, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Dear Lisa:
I received my copy of "Tarnished Angel" in the mail around May 20th (I was away on vacation so I had a neighbor keep an eye out for my expected delivery from Amazon so I could read it upon my return--lest someone should swipe it from my doorstep beforehand!)
Now, I tell you, I never criticize or praise a book until I have read it. Well, I read "Tarnished Angel" and my only comment is this: Why was this book written?
It seems to be a re-hash of Irving Shulman's "Harlow," and repeats incidents in the book just the same as reported in "Harlow." For example, Jean Harlow never visited the White House with Robert Taylor in 1934! It was 1937 that they made that visit to Roosevelt's Inaugural Ball and, yet, in Bret's book, just as in Shulman's, that glaring historical mistake is repeated. And if Bret is regurgitating that inaccuracy, what other inaccuracies are repeated throughout the remainder of his book? This is a question for Mr. Bret to answer.
The book really offers nothing new in the way of enlightenment on the essence and history of Jean Harlow. But what is clear to me is that Bret is able to use words and language that Shulman was unable to put in print in 1964 and that Bret believes everything that Shulman wrote (since he takes a generous swipe at David Stenn at one point in the book).
While I am a long-time fan of Jean Harlow, I also can accept the fact that as a human being Jean Harlow had her faults, weaknesses and made terrible choices during her short lifetime. Just the same, she was no angel and neither was she a saint. But she was also a woman of tremendous strength and courage and deserves way better treatment than she received in "Tarnished Angel" because all the book appears to be is "Harlow" Redux!
Posted by: Elizabeth Bridges | June 17, 2009 at 12:56 PM
It now appears the well-written review from May 4th (linked from here) has now been suspiciously removed by AmazonUK. The buyer provided the proof that he actually bought the book so why did Amazon remove it? I certainly have my theories. There is now a hard to believe five star review in it's place praising Bret's "excellent research."
Right.
Jean Harlow herself said it best in one of her films: "...and I'm Aimee Semple McPherson with a raft."
Posted by: Harlowfan | June 11, 2009 at 04:03 AM
Now I have even more alarming news--it seems that the papers have done this to my publisher again, bought a serialisation and instead of reading the book, offered their own theory which is completely different from that of the author. I'm not looking for excuses for myself--parts of the book you will probably criticise, such as my including the Shulman stuff--which is in quotes, and not what I believe acually happened--I have to include all angles otherwise I get accused of whitewash. But I NEVER called her a slut, and I NEVER said her films were forgettable--one or two, yes, such as the silents, but if anything I have praised her films as amongst the best ever made. Who in their right mind could possibly dismiss Red Dust and Bombshell as forgettable--or Girl From Missouri? These in my opinion remain works of pure genius, solely because of Harlow's quite phenomenal talent. Now another little wager. In the middle of next month I publish Trailblazers, the stories of Jeff Buckley, Gram Parsons and Nick Drake. The date on amazon says 25 June, I wouldn't mind betting that I get lousy reviews for this book, from the same people using different nicknames, before the book comes out. It's a regular pattern now which we are having investigated.
Posted by: David Bret | June 09, 2009 at 07:41 PM
Thank you for responding, David. I'd still love to get a review copy and do a Q&A with you. Can you nudge your publisher to respond to my request? Thanks, Lisa
Posted by: Lisa Burks | June 08, 2009 at 12:24 PM
I have to admit that I am thoroughly ashamed of myself for my outbursts, and would hereby like to apologise. It all started last year when I published my biography of Doris Day and a rival author published his in the USA with exactly the same cover. I had not even finished editing the book before the most horrible reviews appeared. Then I was absolutely hammered by Clark Gable's daughter, who never even knew who he was until many years after his death. Some of the Harlow reviews WERE published before publication. There was an embargo because of the serialisation. Then again I cannot swear that copies of the book did not slip through the net. All that I know is that amazon's investigations revealed that on several occasions, the same people "reviewed" the Harlow book that reviewed the Gable and Day ones, effectively a smear campaign. I was further disappointed by the Mail "review". Usually with a serialisation they take my own words from the book--not this time. I don't think I ever called Harlow a slut--a loveable trollop in her films, yes, and everyone knows about her fondness not to wear undies. I never use words like "knickers". There are so many other things in the Mail piece that are not in the book--indeed, the whole tone of the piece is wrong. I cannot however complain to the paper for two reasons. One, it wouldn't make any difference now. Two, it might affect them taking other books from my publisher. Like I say I can only apologise again. I adored Jean Harlow: of all the movie stars I have written about, she comes out of it with a good reputation, I hope. This was the reason behind the book, the same reason that I wrote Crawford--with that one I was hammered for being on Joan's side when I defended her against her daughter's false accusations of neglect. Read the Harlow book and make up your own minds, of course. It's silly of me to shout off at the mouth like I did--but given all the fake reviews I think I was not exactly out of line. Many thanks, David Bret.
Posted by: David Bret | June 08, 2009 at 04:40 AM
Sounds like a reasonable request to me, especially because your site has been around for so many years, is highly regarded, etc. I'd like to rtead the Q&A and see what you think of the book.
Posted by: Harry Martin | May 19, 2009 at 03:09 PM