jump to navigation

Who writes Joan Wheeler’s reviews on Amazon.com? February 15, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
by Gert McQueen, February 15, 2011
 – with additional commentary by Ruth Pace
I find the following ‘review’, on Amazon, interesting in that it does not actually go into much detail as to what actually is in the book. Moreover I find it a bit interesting because of the words that are used. It reads more like Joan has written this review, as she recycles her own words and story-line, with a few of Rene Hoksbergen’s words thrown in for good measure. (Ruth’s note: Does she have his permission to do this? Why doesn’t he write his own review for Amazon.com? Why is Joan plagiarizing him?)
A Compelling Account of Adoption & Reunion, February 5, 2011
This review is from: Forbidden Family (Paperback)

Joan Wheeler has written a compelling, moving, and often harrowing account detailing her life experiences as an adoptee who at age 18 was contacted by a sister whose existence was unknown to Joan. The subsequent reunion with her birth family was emotion-charged and turbulent with profound effects on Joan and her adoptive family, as well as Joan’s children later on. The book also recounts Joan Wheeler’s activism for adoptees’ rights and her efforts and suggestions to reform the adoption system in order to spare others the frustration and suffering she has endured.

Here are recycled words that have been seen in other places written by Joan Wheeler and/or Rene Hoksbergen:
“compelling, moving, harrowing account, age 18 contacted by sister, unknown to Joan, reunion, was emotion-charged and turbulent with profound effects on Joan and her adoptive family, as well as Joan’s children later on, activism for adoptee’s rights, efforts and suggestions to reform, in order to spare others the frustration and suffering she has endured”
Gosh, that’s pretty much the entire review!
The name of the reviewer is a reference to what the Cheshire Cat said to Alice ‘We’re all mad here’.
Now everyone that knows Joan knows that she frequently is “all mad here” meaning she is all (always) angry here. Joan wants the whole damn world to know that she is ‘all mad here’. She is proud of her anger. She has referred to herself as an angry adoptee.
 Now, All Mad Here doesn’t have a profile nor any other reviews, so why is it necessary for this reviewer to have such a hidden name and city? Why the need to hid? If you like the book then you really shouldn’t have any problem with letting the world know that you like and support the book and the author. But, if you are a coward and just want to be sneaky and cute, fine, hide behind something but you are not doing the book nor author any real favors. People see behind that mask! Anyone who can not put their real name behind a review and stand for what they have to say, have just shown us that they NEVER read the book or just did Joan a favor, or is Joan herself.
Now, Queen City is a reference to Buffalo NY. This is another clue that points to some friend of Joan’s or Joan herself. Does she really think she is pulling the wool over her blood sisters’ eyes? Doesn’t she know that we know what ‘Queen City’ means!
Queen City came about because in its heyday, Buffalo was the second largest city in New York State. The largest being The Big Apple – New York City of course. Buffalo New York has several ‘nicknames’: The City of Good Neighbors, The Queen City, The City of No Illusions, The Nickel City, Queen City of the Lakes, City of Light.
So why the need to be cute and clever here? Why not just come out and say Buffalo and be done with it? Not, Joan, she likes to play games and twist things around. Its just a reflection of her twisted mind.
 So, will the real All Mad Here stand up? Better still, is there any person out there that has DEEPLY READ the book and will stand up and  give a review for it? Hey, there’s lots of material on this blog that you can reference in your review…go for it…will someone write a REAL review of this lousy book!
Ruth’s note: Actually, there were 2 real book reviews. One was written by another adoptee who fairly gushed over the book, which is to be expected from another Angry Adoptee. These people are so full of anger over their rotten adoptions they can’t see beyond their anger and just blindly condemn any act of adoption. Therefore, Joan is a heroine to them, because Joan’s book is nothing but an over-dramatization of Joan’s tortured life. The Angry Adoptee who wrote the review, Heather, is another person who didn’t Deep Read the book. Since Heather is against adoption, to her, Joan’s book is the best thing since sliced bread in thechronicles of anti-adoption. There is no need to Deep Read the book. Because to the Angry Adoptees, anything written against adoption is held to be Gospel Truth. If they were to approach the book with an open mind and Deep Read the book, they would catch the contradictions and inconsistencies contained in this book.  I think that at this point, they don’t want to admit that they were duped by Joan, for fear of appearing foolish. Again, they can’t see past their Anger to realize that if they admit to themselves that they have been led around like sheep, real growth would occur. But they, like Joan, are afraid of growth. They have their Anger, and don’t want to let go of it. 
The other true book review was written by myself. I used my own name. I didn’t put down my city. I had put down “inside a letter box.” Which is a reference to John Lennon’s line in “Across the Universe.” I can’t remember why I did that, it was done over a year ago. And I don’t remember exactly what I wrote, outside of the truthful following: that this book is nothing but a vehicle for Joan to exact her revenge on anyone in her life who ever angered her. Most of the book is just one putdown after another of people who had nothing to do with her adoption.
And I reiterated my father’s words to me about the book: IT BELONGS IN THE TRASH!
%d bloggers like this: