Tuesday, December 3, 2013

The Sherry Bach Mystery

I happened along a discussion in one of my Facebook groups and the name Sherry Bach was mentioned. As it turns out, Sherry Bach is an author, and like myself, she is also a songwriter. Unlike myself, she sings her own songs.

It would appear that a few of the bullies have begun to attack her books. This made me curious. Mostly because Sherry Bach is NOT a member of Goodreads, nor has she ever been. At least, that is my impression.

So why would she be a victim of the Goodreads bullies? 

I decided to try and get to the bottom of this so I went to check out Sherry's books on Goodreads. I saw these comments under her books. Check them out.

But again, if Sherry has never been a member of Goodreads, then why would the bullies target her? Better yet, how did they even find out about her? So I dug a little deeper. I ended up going to her books on Amazon. This is when I saw it. A comment left by Christine M. Irvin on one of Sherry's books, "Abundant Christmas".

The review was not personally attacking Sherry, so kudos for that, right? However, the review itself wasn't very kind. 

Now, I personally have no problem with Christine's review. Since she purchased the book, she has every right to review it, and to be completely honest in the review. It is obvious though, she had a hard time keeping up with the characters and such. One such problem was she thought two characters were one and the same. Maybe Sherry failed to distinguish that "Callahan" and "Callie" were two different people, brother and sister. But for some reason, Christine found it "odd" that the siblings were named so close to each other and yet, they weren't twins. 

I find it odd that Christine would think this.

But then Christine seems to be disappointed that there was only one mention of what Callahan learned in church one day about Christmas. Christine seems to think that Sherry should have included more "religious" undertone in the story. I suppose as a paying reader, Christine has every right to hold certain expectations and to mention she was somewhat disappointed when those expectations weren't met. 

Then I get to the end and see that Christine is a reviewer for "Christian Children's Book Review". This explains a lot to me. 

All in all, I see nothing wrong with Christine's review. I really don't. But as I scroll down further, I see why the bullies have taken it upon themselves to go after Sherry Bach. It would appear that Sherry had a little something to say about Christine's review. Check it out. 

 Now, on a personal level, I don't think Sherry should have responded in such manner, but I am not Sherry. I do think Sherry has every right to respond though. 

At this point, I am thinking from a commonsense perspective here. Seeing how Sherry has responded, I am inclined, as a potential reader, to maybe not wanting to buy / read Sherry's book, but if I did buy / read Sherry's book, I probably wouldn't be too motivated to leave a review, especially if I didn't care for it much. But do I want to get involved with her and Christine's situation? Well, seeing how Christine never responded, probably because the response by Sherry was three years after the fact, there's a pretty good chance that Christine doesn't even know that Sherry even responded, so the answer is, why would I even bother commenting to Sherry? It would only be picking a fight that has nothing at all to do with me, right? 

The commonsense choice would be to just let it go, and move on. 

But no, that would be too easy to do. At least, too easy for a bully. Once a bully stumbles across this, you can bet your left leg they won't stay out of it. Oh no, they can't keep their noses out of other people's business. They have to go and make it THEIR business too. See for yourself the comments left by the bullies. 

Not only does this have nothing to do with them, (Tina and Three R's) but they aren't even paying customers, or readers. It would appear that "Tina" and "Three R's" can't refrain from just simply keeping their big noses out of other people's squabbles. (Or whatever) And just like the bullies that they are, they take it upon themselves to also try and become "judge, jury and executioners" of Sherry Bach's career. But here is the thing, "Three R's" comment doesn't even make any sense. She accuses Sherry of calling Christine an "atheist" when in fact, as you read for yourself, no such thing was mentioned by Sherry. This is how the bullies operate though, they spread lies like a California wild fire. Then "Tina" accuses Sherry of trying to "drum up sympathy sales". 

Shake. My. Head. And. Roll. My. Eyes!

Was this really necessary? Did "Tina" and "Three R's" really need to open their big effing mouths about it? Did they need to get themselves involved? My answer is no! A big fat NO!

So why did they? Why did "Tina" and "Three R's" get involved with something that is completely none of their business? because they're bullies, that's why! That's the only reason it could be. 

This explains why Linda Hilton, Miranda, Shelby, and the notorious bully herself, Shoshana Bick have taken it upon themselves to attack Sherry Bach. And they are not even Sherry's readers. They haven't even read the book. Yet, they showcase bad behavior by rating Sherry's books. These are false ratings. This clearly displays how these bullies lie, lie, lie. This also shows what these people are all about, the hate. 

Then I start to realize that the only reason these bullies do it is because they are lonely little people in the world with nothing better to do. They have nothing at all in their little pathetic lives except the pleasure to get onto the internet and start picking fights, and hating. They have nothing else to do but to get involved with other people's squabbles. 

They think so little of themselves (especially Shoshana) that to try and even make themselves feel special or important, they run all over the internet to try and find more authors to attack and more books to falsely rate. They only do this to try and make others feel as shitty about themselves as they do. That and the fact that they are jealous of other people's talent when they themselves have none. 

This is all these bullies have to offer the world, and at last glance, the world doesn't need them. Don't try and tell that to the bullies though, they have actually convinced themselves that they are important and bullying authors is their job. They actually believe they were born to judge other people's behavior with their own brand of "bad behavior". And if they really believe that no one is buying Sherry's books, then why do they even bother making a comment? Or bother attacking it? 

As for me, I will agree with author Anne Rice in the next screenshot.

Well said, Anne, well said.

As for the bullies? They are the ones who need to really get a life. 

I'm Carroll Bryant .... and this is The Looking Glass.

Things We Learned Today:

* Christine M. Irvin had every right to her review

* Sherry probably would have been wise to not respond

* Sherry still has the right to respond (as do all authors)

* It's between Sherry and her reader, Christine, the bullies need not join in

* The bullies did join in and made what isn't any of their business, their business

* The bullies leave fake ratings

* The bullies are liars

* The bullies have no self restraint

* Haters gonna hate

* The bullies just need to stop with their self righteousness 


You can check out some of Sherry Bach's songs at the following link: 


  1. Fair and balanced commentary with fair points. Good job.

  2. Now that you have celebrities following you I assume your head and ego will only grow by leaps and bounds?

    1. I don't know about leaps, but bounds? Yeah, sure, okay.

  3. Carroll, you made my day! Truly! Thank you so much for these truths that you speak. Have a blessed holiday season.

    1. Thank you Ms. Bach, I wish you and yours a wonderful Christmas holiday as well.

      P.S. - Wonderful voice, wonderful songs.

  4. Actually, Sherry DID say that the reviewer was likely athiest. Sherry said this on a public forum. Sherry chose to complain about this review publicly, which opened up "her business" to others. And...a reader does NOT have to purchase a book to have the right to review it, or to comment on reviews or other comments. Thanks, Mr. Carroll, for NOT getting tall the facts straight.

    1. You'll excuse me if I take your comment with a grain of salt. I don't normally make it a habit to "trust" the word of an "anon", especially when no link was left to take us to the "scene of the crime" as it were.

      But let's assume for the moment you are correct, then yes, I would agree Sherry would have invited others to comment under your scenario, however, (and I think you're missing the point here) it does not excuse people from posting fake ratings or false reviews on Sherry's books just because of her behavior as "judged" by others. You're doing nothing but taking out your anger towards her on a book? How petty, asinine, and adolescent can one be to do something like that?

      Also, one may not have to "purchase" the book to have the right to review it, but one does need to READ the book before rating and reviewing it.

      As for "not getting all the facts straight", you did nothing here today to reveal any new facts. All you did was come on here and spoke as an "anon" without providing any evidence to support your claim. Not that I am calling you a liar, but lack of proof and the word of an anon is not exactly "new facts" in my book.

  5. I love u posts but this Author complain on the amazon forum for the Authors. she attack other Author to. she call the reader a atheists in the forum. I saw the covosation. the bullys attack her but she attack reader 1st. review was 3 yrs old and she attack again wk ago. I sorry but she's a bully to. she not like u. Sorry.

    1. I'll try and say this one more time. It doesn't really matter how she responds to criticism. It still gives no one the right to go to her books and falsely rate and or review them. If your response to "her" perceived bad behavior is to demonstrate your own bad behavior by rating or reviewing a book you never read then both sides could easily be looked at as bullies.

      Two wrongs don't make it right.

      And rest assured, carpet bombing a book simply because you do not like someone's behavior is "bad behavior" too.

      There are other forums to address this, like your blog, or Facebook page, or any groups you are in on Goodreads or whatever the case may be. Not by giving fake ratings and reviews.

      I never complained or attacked a reader for their review and yet, I was attacked by the same bullies who went to GR and attacked Sherry's books. So what is the excuse for the bullies attacking me? If not because of me attacking readers / reviewers, then what? I'll tell you, I was attacked over a relationship I had with a consenting adult. And for doing what the bullies themselves do, I "outed" some bad reviewers for lying to me and stealing free reads from my books. What I did probably wasn't anything different than what the bullies do to authors except, I didn't lie about the people I outed. I didn't call them a bunch of names or accuse them of being pedophiles, and I never got my friends to go after them either.

      I don't care what excuses the bullies come up with to justify their actions when their actions of rating and reviewing books based on their perception of the authors "behavior" is flat out wrong, and bad behavior in of itself.

      Only when the bullies realize this will they stop being bullies. Because what makes them bullies is their assumption that they are the ones who are in charge of judging others when last time I looked, Jesus said that God is the only judge.

      It doesn't matter what justification they use to defend their actions, they are just as wrong, if not more wrong, for what they (the bullies) do than what those they attack do. End of story.

    2. U say bullys are wrong. They are. They like to hurt people. They attack u because their friend tell them to. I never go to goodread because they ban good peple like u. But u are good at tell Authros when they wrong to. Like bullys Horne and that romance lady. Cant remember name. That bald man Rick who in bully group. They bully and it wrong. U are Author but also tell truth. With this Author u only tell 1/2 truth. Bullys are wrong. Authro is wrong. She bully. They bully. No good people in this case. All wrong. not like with u and that girl that attack u.

      Be fiar. that is why I read u blog. u tell truth. please tell truth with Shrry Author. She bully to. All bully is wrong. she also lie. Sherry is bully. U our not. different. dont let her lie to u.


    3. I did tell the truth. I never said she didn't do what she did. I said she responded unwisely, in my opinion, but that the bullies needn't have responded to her nor did they need to attack her books for her responding. Most certainly, the latter. I simply stated she has a right to respond, like all authors do, even though I would advise against it.

      This post wasn't to defend Sherry, but to demonstrate that there is no need to attack her through her books by falsely rating / reviewing her books for it. (Or for any author) And I did say in the post that I thought she was wrong, but that what the bullies did also was wrong as well.

      Sherry hasn't lied to me. She and I have never corresponded in any capacity.

    4. Thanks for the link.

      To expand on my previous comment, one of my thoughts are: How do we know that Sherry and Christine don't know each other in real life? And that Christine just doesn't like her? One should never see a situation like Sherry and Christine and just assume one is right and the other is wrong. For all we know, those two could have some kind of history. The best course of action when you see an author responding to anything, is not to assume you know what is going on and not to judge but rather, maybe just stay out of it? I believe that most people who respond to other people's disagreements are already looking for a fight to begin with, which is why they get involved.

      Things between two people should remain between those two people. Christine's review and Sherry's response is nobody's business really. However, Sherry did go to the boards and opened the topic for debate, fine, another unwise decision perhaps, but it's still not a reason to go to her books and rate them one stars or give a bad review to them if you never read the book. That's all I am saying. An authors "bad" behavior is no excuse to execute your own "bad" behavior by rating / reviewing books you never read.

  6. I sorry to make u mad. :(


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.