Monday, March 16, 2009

Hardball Publishers?

It's Official: Wade's Publisher Won't Send
a Copy of the Book for Review Purposes

That's right . . . I received an email today from P. K. Gammons, VP of Smyth & Helwys Publishers informing me that I will not be sent a digital copy of Wade Burleson's forthcoming book, Hardball Religion, for review.

Gammons had offered me a digital copy of the book several days ago, and at the time I turned him down. Later, I realized that in writing a review for this blog, it would be more convenient to have a digital copy to facilitate copying any material to be quoted; therefore, I notified Gammons that I would like to have the digital copy.

Now, however, it seems to be too late. I have "missed the boat." I have "crossed the deadline" . . . "the day of grace is over."

Gammons indicates that his offer was good only so long as the book was still at the press. Evidently, that time has passed and so Gammons says S&H will not send me a digital copy for writing a review. How convenient.

This is what some might call a "Hardball Publisher."

I really wonder -- does S&H really want me to review the book? I seriously doubt it. They are aware of what has already been published on this blog, and they probably realize by now that they most likely have a first-class "dud" of a book in their lap.

It won't take too long for the news to get around that Wade's one-and-only source on Landmarkism has repudiated the book's misappropriation of my writings. They evidently realize that any further comments by me in a review could only tend to dissipate sales potential.

S&H may be hoping that there are enough "suckers" out there who have not read my comments about the book, and sales to the naive and unsuspecting will still be possible -- at least enough sales to recover the money S&H invested in the project.

NOTE: Feel free to utilize this article and any other which may serve your purpose -- on blogs, web sites, print-outs for distribution, etc. I have no restriction on the use of my writings other than that they be used ethically in an appropriate manner. Some who have used my writings have not always used them appropriately, such as some Campbellites, Hardshells, Hybrid Calvinists, Preterists, "King James Onlyites," and in the most recent case, Wade Burleson. -- Bob L. Ross


  1. "Back-fire"?

    Ian writes:


    One way to verify whether this is S&H standard practice is to find out (1) if they have this policy in writing and/or
    (2) if there are cases of reviewers receiving digital copies of books to review when the book was not "at press." If he was willing to provide a copy last week, why did he change within a matter of a few days. Curious.

    Bob's reply:

    The fact is, Ian, the policy taken by S&H may only serve to enhance the significance of what I have already written and will yet write.

    It is apparently clear that both Wade and S&H really don't want me to write a review, considering the critical materials already published on this blog.

    They remind me of how the Campbellites have often tried to boycott my writings, for example --

    In one of my debates with the Campbellites at a large Church of Christ in Parkersburg, West Virginia, the Campbellite parties in charge would not permit the distribution of some materials I had prepared.

    The Campbellites' opposition only served to enhance interest in the forbidden material, and hundreds of the people in the large audience, even Campbellites themselves, came up afterwards to pick up the items we had on hand. People wanted to see what was so important that the Debater and his assistants would not permit its distribution.

    The thing "back-fired" on them, and now I have those materials available even more extensively in a small book called "The Restoration Movement" HERE

    Perhaps the same will result from the S&H approach, for eventually I will have access to the book and will probably write comments about it. S&H's denial of the digital copy to me may simply serve to enhance interest in what I will have to say, don't you think?

  2. Bob,

    You wrote: It is apparently clear that both Wade and S&H really don't want me to write a review, considering the critical materials already published on this blog.

    Allow me to use a favorite analogy from your friend Pete Lumpkin: I don't give a rat's gnat whether you write a review or not

    I just want you to pay for the privilege.

    :) Grinning big time.

  3. O, I see.

    P. K. Gammons was just "gassing" when he offered to send me a copy for review, right? I wonder how P. K. let Peter and Tim Guthrie get by without paying?

    If you are hard-up for money, Wade, I'll be glad to send you a donation above-and-beyond the price of the book. After all, this may become a "collector's item" once S&H has managed to somehow get rid of what they have printed, and I would like a copy somewhat as a "trophy." It most likely won't see the light-of-day again unless you can find some other source you can appropriate as if it supports you. How much for an autographed photo of the author to go with the book?

    Thanks, tho, for calling attention to my Landmark book. Interest seems to be picking up for it. I'll send you a commission if we get enough orders to justify doing so.

    Keep grinning, Wade. Every one deserves to have a little fun.

  4. "Gratitude"?

    Wade, you used my book as your one-and-only source on "Landmarkism," and now you want me to pay for a copy to review?

    A fellow here just read your comment and said, "Well, that's some gratitude!"

    I said, "No . . . that's just Wade Burleson!"

  5. Disclaimer?

    It is my understanding that the publisher of Wade's book has included a "Disclaimer" in the book.

    This simply means that they don't take any responsibility with respect to any untruthfulness in the book. If there's anything wrong, they want the reader to know it's "not our fault."

    I have noticed this on a few books, and it always leaves me with the impression that the publishers themselves may not actually accept the validity of what is contained in the book and they are trying to set themselves apart from any responsbility.

    I have never considered that approach to be a responsible policy in a publisher. I would not publish something by anyone if I had to hide behind a "Disclaimer" for protection from spreading false and misleading information for which I am getting paid by purchasers.

    As to Wade's book, it makes me wonder if S&H really believes what Wade has written.

  6. Bob said, “As to Wade's book, it makes me wonder if S&H really believes what Wade has written.”


    If they didn’t have any doubts about the Landmark claims in the book, then you have done a good job educating them over the last week through the articles and comments on the blog. You may have instructed many readers over the last few days.

  7. Bob:
    Maybe you should publish a few articles on the Reformed Flyswatter briefly discussing the various elements of Landmarkism. Some of our readers may find it beneficial. It may help many who are confused about the movement or misinformed about it to gain a proper understanding. Sometimes a subject simply and succinctly handled has great effect.

    What do you think?