No protestation, however skilfully contrived, has convinced us that ‘Liz’ is not, in fact, the author of West; with each comment we believe the circumstantial evidence increases.
Recently she invited us — to prove that she wasn’t Jim Perrin — to ‘look up the rest of [her] reviews…’ (On Amazon.)
We did: ‘These [mules] are extremely comfortable and really nice in the silver (actually more of a pewter colour). Good value. Flattering.’ And, of a second pair, ‘These sandals are sooo [sic] comfortable and well made. The brown ones…’. Her reviews are not in the same literary style as her comments about us! And as a note said both of these items were ‘currently unavailable’, we wonder why she bothered. (Except of course we think she was merely spinning a yarn, and placing false comments as part of her (JPs?) on-going subterfuge.)
* * * * *
Jac’s sisters have reviewed West on Amazon: now largely discredited for the exaggeration and the proved and reprehensible lies of the author — it is hardly surprising that it has achieved neither good sales figures* nor even a place on the long-list for the prestigious ‘Wales Book of the Year’. Doubtless this will have surprised Jim Perrin greatly as he has been the blue-eyed boy of that literary circle for many profitable years…
In our latest post, Jim Perrin’s Fiefdom, we outlined our theory — our belief — that he has for some time been manipulating the internet by planting his own reviews and comments with the use of aliases.
Our first brief mention of ‘Liz’ (four words!) was on Amazon in February 2011, followed by two posts A Question of Identity and False Colours. This elicited from her the response — ‘Do not bother with one of your oh-so-reasonable replies. I won’t be reading it’.
Clearly she is still reading our posts, and has made increasingly vituperative comments about us, presumably in an attempt to discredit us; a ploy previously used by ‘Melangell’ on The Guardian thread relating to West, 24/10/10, although we suppose by now that Amazon thread has been spun rather thin and very few people read it, other than Jim Perrin and ourselves. (Could this be a cue for another alias? Well, yes. ‘DrudwyBranwen’ made his début some time later.)
We sense that Jim Perrin is cross that we choose not to engage with him in discourse — intelligent or otherwise — and that he cannot brow-beat us. He attempts to lure us, to ‘draw us out’, but mostly we think he is trying to distract readers from our site jacssisters (which is damaging to him, if not damning) by this artful use of obfuscation.
But, the many lies told in West — one is his claim, untruthful, of Welsh ancestry — and another that he is dying of ‘Terminal Lung Cancer’, which he isn’t — show him to be not only an author, but a man, who lacks integrity.
* * * * *
As regards our theory that we believe Jim Perrin has manipulated the internet we need look no further than the latest comment by ‘Liz’. It was posted on Amazon,clearly she is using that site as her ‘avenue’, (as she accused us of doing) within only hours of our latest post, ‘Jim Perrin’s Fiefdom’, 24/06/11, and as we have said elsewhere: ‘Who else but HE would care, or would be sufficiently interested, or would have the motive’ to so traduce Jac’s sisters?
This is somebody very quick off the mark indeed. Relatively innocuous (apart from the word toxic — and we quite see why Jim Perrin would deem it so as our posts are full of unpalatable truth, which must be very uncomfortable reading for him), this comment was edited by its author, and if one blinked one would have missed it. Only hours later the present version appeared. We have a print-out of the original. As a comparison it is fascinating: obviously the author felt he had not done himself justice.
The first paragraph, that is, the portion of quotation from our post, is unchanged and the new elements are added in between ‘The lady doth protest too much [we think]’ and ‘what bluster are you talking about?’ SEVENTY FOUR extra and revealing words are included!
Note the inclusion of the sarcastic remark concerning our (proof-reading) error — it would seem he missed it himself at first reading, or chose to use it maliciously in his edit.
The new word ‘Now’ in front of ‘what bluster?’… that is, do engage, do enter into ‘discourse’, (ref. a previous comment) and, he says, our ‘only desire is to trash Jim Perrin….’! We think this style of writing very ‘trashy’ indeed and rather a good example of Jim Perrin at work. (Although not in his ‘lyrically-lovely mode’.)
We have chosen to respond, certainly not as tit-for-tat, but in order to show a) that we realise what is happening — in our opinion — his manipulation and b) more importantly, to tell others of it who might have been unaware.
She, (JP?) has also put in his? — revised — comment that ‘You will use any avenue that will permit you to speak.’ This is of course a stratagem of which Jim Perrin himself is a past-master; and we have this site, we need no other ‘avenue’.
As new arrivals on the internet scene, we have had to learn quickly; but we would scorn to use pseudonyms, aliases or downright lies as we think Jim Perrin has done and we remember that he was the author of a vile (and subsequently certified to be) anonymous letter — ref. our post of that title.
And if ‘Liz’ is by now becoming even more angry, may we suggest that she should lie down quietly in a darkened room…
Jac’s sisters.
* It was Toby Mundy, whose company Atlantic Books published West, who told us this himself. He went on to say of Jim Perrin: ‘It was the book he should never have written’.
N.B. As the post above refers mainly to ‘Liz’ (JP?) and as the thread with the evidence from which we quote has now been deleted from Amazon, there will be considerable mystery for our readers. In a future post we will tidy up the loose ends and promise to quote the ‘Liz exchange’ in full so that you may read for yourselves why we are so sure that ‘she’ is really ‘he’… That is: Jim Perrin’s use of an alias.