Over the past year or so we have been entertained by a certain witch author. Most of the history is available on the Official Chops Blog. The material for her books is taken from other copyrighted authors books and from websites all over the web. It is well documented on Chops. No, we don’t make things up – we don’t have to. All the evidence stands.
What is interesting is she has now taken to bashing reviewers. She uses the comments area for each of the reviewers to bash these reviewers in public. Talk about looking desperate. After all, it is the reviewers who sussed out her latest book as being a remake of her older and still plagiarized material. She does claim she has “updated” the volume, however inspection of the available “Look Inside” feature shows that while the book may be formatted a bit better than the last volume, all that appears to be changed are the credits to this woman. To quote one of the reviewers:
“…the introductions are exactly the same… except for some formatting. Oh, wait, it says in the first book, issued in 2011 – “It has evolved over thirty five years of experience of practical Magick which is primarily based on first hand experience.” The new version says “It has evolved over fifty years of experience of practical Magick which is primarily based on first hand experience.” You got fifteen more years of experience since last year? Now that’s magick!”
The reviewer admits that she has the first book. However, she has only compared the content of the first book to the material available in the “Look Inside” feature of the second book. To her credit, she only comments on what she can see. Quite frankly, I don’t blame her. I would not want to be accused of purchasing a book that contains mostly stolen copyrighted material from other authors.
The second reviewer took some heat as well. After a very distasteful comment from the author, the reviewer writes some passages from the book, along with citing the sources – a book by Eileen Holland, a Llewellyn publication that is still under copyright.
The author replies:
“sites included and cited during a new witches journey incude The Wicca Handbook by Eileen Holland, Aleister Crowley: Wicca for the Rest of Us, Aleister Crowley The Book of the Law.
13 Goals of a Witch by Scott Cunningham, Wicca for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham
“The Inner Temple of Witchcraft” by Christopher Penczac, The 13 Wiccan Principles Council of American Witches, in April and several other recognised witches”
Please pardon the spelling issues and formatting. That is copied and pasted directly from the woman’s public comment. Yes, I can quote public content without copyright issues, as it is “public” and she is a “well known” author.
The fact that the author has copied entire paragraphs, and/or complete works of these authors, all of which are still under copyright by said authors and/or publishers, does not seem to sink into her head. According to American Copyright laws, you need permissions from the publisher to include actual material from said works. And knowing the Llewellyn Publisher and their recent work on behalf of some of their authors regarding a website offering their books as give aways, I am sure the permissions for the material in question has not been asked for, nor given.
Click on the image to enlarge it.
By the way, I have to say, I feel sorry for her proofreader. If this is how this author writes, her proofreader must have a really tough job.
And on the other hand, apparently she is splitting copyright hairs by calling her book a “guidebook” now, so she can get around the copyright violations. Interesting; did her solicitor advise her to do this?
She has a string of reviews that point out her book as being less than spectacular. These reviewers point out pretty much the same thing. It is a rehash of her other book, seems she has yet again changed her name, and the title and the cover. I say yet again, because it seems this book, and the author, have gone through some interesting name changes and titles over the past couple of years. But that is another blog posting, most of which can be found on the Official Chops Blog. But, to keep your attention – look for another post to our blog here to see who is really who – certain evidence has come to the surface – stay tuned!
But back to the reviewers. Reading the postings by the author, she seems to be throwing out whatever she can to cover her arse. She accuses the reviewers of all being the same person! Well, interesting, because a second poster appears in the comments. And what she says is even more interesting.
Remember this name: Lillane “Devlin” – it becomes very clear shortly who this person is. But that is not my story. What is interesting is what she says. The first reviewer posts the following:
“You seem to be fond of taking reviews from the Irish Times and using them to promote your own work. I know they are going to be rather upset at that. After all, their reviews are copyrighted as well. Yes, we found the book review you cut and pasted from for the review on your book. Sad, you can’t even write your own reviews.”
And Ms. Lillane replies:
“Yes chops is guilty of putting up a fake review only to even the balance”
If our readers look back a few weeks earlier, there was a “fake chops” page on WordPress, in which people were insulted, harassed and slandered. WordPress finally took the pages down. This is evident by the post given by Ms. Lillane with links to a page that WordPress posted stating that said blog was removed for violations of WordPress terms and service. Talk about self-incrimination. Is this woman, then, the author of the fake chops page that was so poorly constructed and that butchered the English language? And is she also the author of the fake reviews for this author’s book? One would think that comment suggests such! Looking at the use of grammar and spelling, if you had been unfortunate enough to read the fake chops blog before it was removed; it is not hard to believe that these two people are one in the same!
Tisk, tisk – what has this generation come to, poor English, bad grammar, appalling spelling and ramble on sentences.
But, I digress. Take a look for yourself, all the wonderful comments that are still left on the book site. The author did go through this morning and take down many of her raw comments. Rather smart of her, as her comments were less than stellar. But more of the same still remains. She bashes and bashes each of the reviewers, in a less than ladylike manner and, considering her name, only shows how unladylike she is. And, to be sure, she is not what I would call a “classic example” of an author, or a so called High Priestess of a coven. Interestingly enough, one of the reviewers mentions that as well. Where is her coven again? Seems no one in that area has ever heard of her or her coven. Well, the answer to that is coming up as well. Much more has been discovered – so stay tuned! – Clotho