CHASTIZED

In the dog house again!
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1939844363/

Two important personages from IWSG have slapped my wrists cyber-wise.

I was sent the Publisher's Weekly review.  I did not seek it out.
But since I posted a positive review of my story in the collection, I thought it only fair to post a negative one.
Especially since two of my fellow anthologists got glowing reviews.

{Actually all the stories in this collection are absorbing and entertaining.
Obviously the reviewer was suffering from a hangover when he read the stories!}

If my fellow anthologists feel I have stained their stories or reputations, I apologize.

My post contained 2 glowing reviews of Jen and Erika and I only included the  "unique" review of mine.
People would have had to follow the link to read the rest of the review.
Besides, Publisher's Weekly is hardly a fly-by-night site.
I thought it best to face the music and contest it.

What did that one email say?

"It’s one thing when it’s a review of your own work and another when it involves others.
Considering how hard the others have worked to promote it, that’s not really fair.
Sorry, but the IWSG admins wish you hadn’t posted it for all to see. Looks bad on us as well."

I disagree. 
What you are called does not matter -- only what you answer to.

I have never believed in being an ostrich
but in a life of openness and integrity. 
I would not do well in the Trump administration, right?

I believe books, even collections of short stories, receive unwarranted bad reviews.
To pretend they do not exist makes us appear as if we believe their accuracy. 

All of you in this anthology,
if you perceive me as unfair and cruel, I am sorry for any discomfort I have unintentionally given you.
I will never submit to another anthology again