Le liars amongst the reviewers
590024
The author begs for positive reviews, using pity and scheming. Most 5 star reviews are well fake...I wouldn't waste a dime on this scumbag.
525172
With 'A Necessary Deception, Laurie Alice Eakes introduces readers to her new series 'The Daughters of Bainbridge House'.
Set in the Regency era of London society it reminds us of a time when political tension betwixt England and France was strong. This was after all a time when Napoleon Bonaparte's Armies swept the European continent yet the Royal Navy ruled the seas, much to his chagrin.
Suspicion and distrust plagued many of the French emigres and spies were thought to be everywhere.

In 'A Necesary Deception' Laurie Alice Eakes brings us a glimpse of an elegant world complete with intrigues, drawing room etiquette, balls, mysteries, foreign spies and unsuitable suitors but somehow it fell short of my expectations. Her 'Midwives' series was after all well received and faithful readers spoke of fascinating historical background and intriguing characters.

Neither the young widow Lydia Gale or the Frenchman Christien de Meuse (living in England for 10 years seems to have a deplorable effect on his french articulation!) appeared as credible characters in this particular story however and the many extras added little to its development.
The plot in itself was enticing but as such provides little entertainment and confuses readers in its ultimate climax.

Regrettably I cannot say this is anything but a light historical novel to be enjoyed on a cold winter night, tucked by the fire perhaps with a nice box of chocolates to make it a bit sweeter!
I suggest you decide for yourself! After reading her first blog (here) and her latest one (here) there seems to be much more to this author than this one novel!
I gave it 3 stars.

I received this book free from BAKER REVELL* as part of their Blogger Review program. I was not asked to write a positive review and the opinions expressed are entirely my own.
I am disclosing this in accordance with the FTC 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
4104392
I find it interesting that 90% of the five star reviews are from customers who have only ever reviewed this book, and all the low star reviews are from verified purchasers.  Wish I had figured that out before I bought it, as all the low star reviews were right.  Looks to me like a company/authoring soliciting fake five star reviews...
2445953
Why are the other reviewers placing false reviews on book they haven't read, or reviewing the seller of a used book, not the author or book content itself?  Amazon doesn't work filled with nonsense reviews like that.  Maybe Amazon they should adopt a Yelp approach and through out the faulty reviews.  Anyways, here's my fake 1 star review to counter them.  Cheers!
1910736
It's usually very easy to tell when a "so-called reviewer" (to borrow from a phrase Helen Thomas recently used to describe 'so-called terrorists') gives a negative review for a book that he/she hasn't even read. Generally, the "review" is a blanket condemnation of the author or the book itself, for example, "This book is trash" "The arguments are taken out of context" "The author is a fear-mongering neo-con", etc... There will never be any criticism of the author's thesis or specific arguments put forth in the book. What purpose does this serve, then? Besides making the "reviewer" appear to be the prejudiced person that he or she is ("prejudiced", as in, one who "pre-judges" something without any factual information to support his or her judgement), such intellectually dishonest activity aims to influence prospective buyers who use the Amazon rating system to assist in their decision to purchase a product by lowering the overall score of the book. When done enough times, the rating of a book will decrease significantly and those not wary enough recognize this tactic may therefore be influenced by the poor rating to not purchase the book. Perhaps not coincidentally, this tactic can be observed in many of the books by conservative authors and often contain vicious, personal attacks on them, simply because the "reviewer" has an ideological or philosophical difference of opinion. For these individuals will defend free speech and call for the tolerance of dissent as long as it is in agreement with their perspective. If not, their hypocrisy shines through as the author is subjected to the very prejudice and intolerance they claim to be against. How much more hypocritical can you get?
984167
I want to warn anybody who is seriously looking for a review to set the thing to 'oldest first'. the first 60-70 reviews are NOT actual reviews, but just a bunch of gibberish put there by a load of people that only came here to bash the book, while knowing nothing about it. They were refered here by a guy named Maddox, on his site MADDOX.XMISSION.COM Go check it out, but don't take any new reviews seriously.
3695216
I am posting this after reading Coup D'Etat and then reading the reviews. The book has received many five star reviews and a smattering of one stars. One five star stated it as "The Holy Grail of Action-Packed Thrillers!"  I enjoyed it thoroughly. It was exciting and kept me from first page to last. But it is not the next "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold". This book also has been criticized by one and two star reviewers for the technical details that were flawed. Reviewers gave examples such as, Singapore is not a republic, as stated in the book. Jets use fuel, not gasoline. Or when it was described that the blind cleric looked out the window. Sometimes flaws need to be ignored or you may miss out on a good story. Too many and it can be distracting.  When considering a book I will ignore the five star and one star reviews. No book is that good or that bad. I will read the 2-4 stars and get a consensus, and if the ratio is favorable, then I will try it. It never fails for me, and it didn't in this case. This book was VERY good.  Not a five star, but not a one star as some have described here. Otherwise, it wouldn't have made the Amazon Top 100. All books, even the classics have their faults.
1998912
friends of the author. I didn't read this book because all the reviews that look at all legitimate are really bad. Does the author think we are this dumb? Amazon, please take a look at these reviews!
4717128
Does anyone else find it strange that out of 19 5-star reviews, 10 purchasers reviewed nothing else except this one book?  This certainly leads me to believe that these people are "planted" to submit a 5-star review in order to get the book sold. When I look at the 5-star reviews on items I want to buy, I always check to see if they've reviewed other items.  I do this to make certain random people don't just write positive reviews in order to jack up the ratings for sales purposes.
3782648
I have not purchased this book but it popped up on my Amazon screen. Any time I read reviews of unverified purchasers who say they have been "given" or "gifted" the book, it makes me think "advanced copy" and friends/colleagues of the author. So many 5-star, uncritical reviews clumped together when the book has not been picked up and reviewed by any major journalistic source? The book sounds unique in a number of ways, but I believe first time authors -- or any, for that matter -- should encourage those getting advanced copies to state that fact and to give a completely honest reviews. It would help others, "not-connected", get a more nuanced sense of a book and bring the truth factor way up. As is, I see a heavily promoted book by the author's friends. Not what Amazon is meant for.
1902305
It is fabulous but definitely not that funny. We must not imagine but realize we are governed by this kind of social climbers, this kind of social egotistic selfish egocentric psychopaths who only try to capture some power, not really for the power of it, or at the most the power it provides them with over their direct employees, their direct associates, their friends who are friends as long as they are useful. These people have no vision whatsoever. They can advocate a solution today and exactly the reverse on the following day. They can be gross and pretend they are dainty, or just plain liars and let you know they are suffering so much because they told a lie because they could not avoid telling such a lie because otherwise their wives, husbands, spouses, boy or girl friends, plain friends, children pets or even gold fish, or whatever, would have suffered in a way or another if they had not changed positions and convictions during the night and over the week end. Then you end up wondering why they are in their position of power, who in hell elected them, and you suddenly realize you elected them by not voting at all or by wasting your vote on a marginal side-kick candidate. After seeing such a perilous voyage in the stormy waters of political intrigue and the schizophrenic superman complex, you can only finally decide to vote for the good side next time. But is there a good side? Can we vote for Head without seeing that Head entails Tail, or vice versa? The only thing that changes in these people are not the teeth but the dentures. They all bite abundantly with steel or gold but always with gusto since for them the public is a piece of meat and the media are the pepper and the salt of the barbecued beef.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID
454423
About some of these ignorant reviews.  Its obvious you haven't read the book or the series, though it is not tolkien quality, it is not too bad in my opinion.
I know certain of you religious groups like to reserve the right to demonize other philosophies, and you start feeling threatened when groups (that your own religious texts shamelessly slander without basis or reason other than the fact that the authors didn't approve of gays and un-convertables *Pagans and atheists who wouldn't join the movement) this group in particular starts appearing to polish their image that--lets face it--has mostly been tarnished through the centuries by you types and not the individuals themselves, instead of them just knuckling under and pretending to be what you've been taught to knee-jerk believe them to be.  Lets keep the paranoia and hypocrisy to a minimum shall we?
Read the book, then write a review.  Its very simple.

Don't just slap someone in the face with the "we know you're evil because that's what we've been taught, so stop pretending that you're good" crap.
People who have decided not to embrace the mysticism side of philosophy believe their philosophy is the best just like you do yours.  So they write books, just like your members do, showing how X beliefs preferred by them are better than Y.  Ironically you're acting much like the people in the dark materials books with the "how dare someone have and opposing view point they must be evil" act.
You think Christians don't write books that are unflattering to other groups? Oh really?  Try the left behind series for starters.  In fact lets go to the left behind reviews and see how many negative and incredibly paranoid reviews from opposing view points there are posted.  I'll bet you its not a lot.  Somebody has more respect than somebody else don't they...

And P.S. If you don't like media with religious personages as the bad guy don't ever read The Three Musketeers either.  Though I have to tell you it was a very good book. ^_^
1796875
If you want to bathe in evil sludge you can find most of it online. Given Thorne's antics I suspect a good number of the 5-star reviews here are fake. He has a documented history of such things.
2419384
All, or the vast majority, of these reviews are from people who got these lunchboxes for free to review so of course they will be glowing reports.  I REALLY wish that I could trust Amazon reviews but fact is that more and more often people are "paid" for false claims.
1685036
I love the critics who complain about "logical inconsistencies" etc.  These are entertainment, a vacation for the mind, with interesting men, good looking women, and fantastical plots that need to be treated by the actors as real for the play to work. Do you think Shakespeare's "penny stinkers" thought the actors were really on an island (The Tempest was actually the first episode of Lost)or criticized his verisimilitude because they couldn't hear the surf, that some medieval character from Monty Python was going to jump out to criticize the logic of using "magic" in the plot?  Relax, open a beer, enjoy the show. That's what Torchwood is supposed to do - and it does it very well.
4525995
In 1971 when this book was written, the Foundation For The Advancement of Sephardic Studies and Culture in New York City put out four formal reviews on Stephen Birmingham's book.  The reviews were by people from the academic community WITHIN the very community he wrote about.
One of the reviews was the Rabbi of the very congregation the book is based on "Marc Angel".  He wrote: "Birmingham is so eager to show that the "Grandees" are aloof and snobby, that he ignores reality. He interprets things as he wants them to be, not as they are."  Rabbi Angel also wrote: "His book is plagued with factual inaccuracies and poor historical perspectives. Unfortunately, many Jews and non-Jews are reading the book and are having their opinions molded by it because they know little or nothing about Sephardim."
The well-respected Sephardic scholar David N. Barocas wrote of the Grandees: "To rely on hearsay information, or to select at random passages from books and then try to weave them into the fabric of one's text or report constitutes in the final analysis a combination of misstatements, incomplete truths and factual omissions tending to present a perverted opinion of an innocent people."
There are many good books out there which are acurate, unfortunatly this is not one of them. It was written by an outsider of the community. It is biased, and does give a good example of the Sephardic community.
4665551
I never write reviews and I'm not going to spend much time on this one. The book did disgust me enough to warrant a review though, it bothers me I actually gave this lying bastard of an author anything of my money.

I thought it interesting to see how such "truth searchers" as particularly Tolstoy and Marx was going to be discredited. Yet also others, such as Rosseau and others. Especially interesting since some of the people has done good historically for the world I figured the points needed to be particularly strong to be relevant or the author needed to have particularly little shame to lie about some people who seriously devoted their lives to try and improve things for humanity.

However, early on it the book one quickly finds that the writer is at times making stuff up and at others is taking things out of their context to make his own point. It is filled with inaccuracies, speculation and made up quotes.

Do not give this guy any money. I almost could not believe someone actually could have the shame to write some chapters and feel good about himself. Probably that's correct. Thankfully money and prestige combined with a bad conscience does not make for happiness. Thanks for letting us know that Socrates "a good man cannot be harmed".

Stay away.