TerraPrime Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Do we have a Sparhawk? Is he from Bulgaria? Yes, we used to have SPARHAWK THE MIGHTY (yes, all caps) in the early days of the ezboard (though I think he predated ezboard and might have been mostly during eesite?). Forgot whether he's from Bulgaria or not. But he was infamous for posting ridiculously bad posts of no substance. He was, I believe, the first inspiration of using alts to mock someone, because he spawned SPARHAWK The TINY and then, spoof of a spoof, SPARHAWK THE TIDY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuenjato Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 [quote name='who_stole_my_wombat' date='04 December 2009 - 02:18 PM' In some respects, you got to admire the sheer audacity of this guy -- he started off in 2002 trying to promote his books by inserting mention of them in many Amazon reviews of well known, widely read books (and sometimes bashing the book in order to do so). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Do we have a Sparhawk? Is he from Bulgaria? It's been quite a while, but I seems to recall that he was English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Yes, we used to have SPARHAWK THE MIGHTY (yes, all caps) in the early days of the ezboard (though I think he predated ezboard and might have been mostly during eesite?). Forgot whether he's from Bulgaria or not. But he was infamous for posting ridiculously bad posts of no substance. He was, I believe, the first inspiration of using alts to mock someone, because he spawned SPARHAWK The TINY and then, spoof of a spoof, SPARHAWK THE TIDY. Wasn't the second spoof SPARWANK THE TIDY? I seem to recall that it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Wasn't the second spoof SPARWANK THE TIDY? I seem to recall that it was. It was indeed. I think that was ByTor, though I'm not 100% sure about that. He (SPARHAWK THE MIGHTY) introduced me (and many others, I imagine) to the phrase "badly-packed kebab". He was Irish, IIRC, though I never did meet him. I'm not sure anybody did, for that matter. FWIW, when I glanced at the pictures with Brian Jacques I didn't think they were obviously Photoshopped. I just figured Stanek wasn't sitting in a chair; he was squatting at the edge of the desk there, so the position of his legs was off from one might otherwise expect them to be. Of course, if there are versions with more obvious and/or proven Photoshopping, my opinion will easily change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 FWIW, when I glanced at the pictures with Brian Jacques I didn't think they were obviously Photoshopped. I just figured Stanek wasn't sitting in a chair; he was squatting at the edge of the desk there, so the position of his legs was off from one might otherwise expect them to be. Of course, if there are versions with more obvious and/or proven Photoshopping, my opinion will easily change. I think most of the photoshopping accusations stem from this version of the picture. Look closely and you will see the base of the chair he is supposed to be sitting on, but you will not see any hint of his lower body. This had led most of us to believe that Stanek just photoshopped himself into a picture with Jacques. Now Stanek has released this version of the picture (scroll about halfway down the page). You will notice a few differences; mainly that you can now see his lower body, and that there is now a pile of trash sitting in front of Stanek instead of a book. This has led me at least to reassess my original opinion, and it now seems likely that Stanek was actually there with Jacques. Considering that Stanek originally used this photo to "prove" his claim that he was on tour with Jacques, my new opinion is this: Stanek photoshopped this picture to remove the trash in front of him and replace it with a book, thereby making it look like he and Jacques were both signing books at the event. Somehow during the photoshopping process Stanek's legs got lost, making it look like Stanek photoshopped the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdanel Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I think Stanek wasn't there. I think he added the trash to disguise how the reflection of light in the table in front of him was all wrong and revealed that he wasn't really there. He just replaced a photoshop with a better photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Without much experience in photoshopping, let me try to explain what's going on. Robert Stanek is clearly there. He's squatting behind a table next to Brian Jaques (possibly to give the impression that he's signing books himself, or otherwise part of the event — we can't know). No chair can be seen, because no chair is supposed to be there. The two large images posted on Stanek's blog in November 2009 confirm this. They look exactly as they should, I can see no artefacts, bent limbs, or anything else that looks iffy. I think there are undoctored images. The only manipulation is the much smaller picture in the same blog entry, the one without trash. I can understand why this was cleaned up, the presence of trash on the table looks really bad and doesn't reflect well on the event. If one wants to assume malice than the presence of trash makes it less likely to believe that Stanek actually signs something. But there could be perfectly harmless aesthetic reasons to remove the trash. Reasons to assume that this picture is manipulated: (1) it is taken very close in time to the two other pictures, you can basically follow the progression of a paperback from author-in-pink-shirt to Jaques to a stack in front of Jacques. It's unclear which direction the book (and time) travels in, but somebody is either a very fast cleaner or a very fast litterer to change the amont of trash in front of Stanek that fast. (2) The shadows on the table below Stanek are completely wrong. You can see the Starbucks mug's reflection still, but the mug is gone. And Stanek is reflected white on the table, though he's not wearing white. Finally, his right hand is cut off and replaced by more blue from his sweater; I think I can even see some pixel-dust. The manipulator put a book in front of Stanek, which retains the white reflection of the coffee lid, but the crumpled piece of paper between Stanek's left hand and the girl in the red shirt proved to difficult, so it's just cut off. So this picture looks manipulated to my untrained eyes, with the goal to remove litter from the table. But I have no reason to believe that Stanek wasn't attending this event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I think Stanek wasn't there. I think he added the trash to disguise how the reflection of light in the table in front of him was all wrong and revealed that he wasn't really there. He just replaced a photoshop with a better photoshop. Yes. In the trash-less pic, you can still see the reflections of the (now nonexistent) coffee-cup and a bit of obvious blurring on the tabletop, plus the complete lack of any dark-blue reflection (as you'd expect to see from his shirt) - the only reflections are from white stuff that suspiciously no longer exists. I'm not so sure about the missing legs - unfortunately the original photo is such low resolution it's hard to see what's going on under that table, even if you adjust the levels, but there's definitely been something photoshopped under there cos it's a blurry mess. Not kosher at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I think most of the photoshopping accusations stem from this version of the picture. Aha, now I see the issues. I had only seen the two larger photos on his site, where he's (to my eyes) obviously not supposed to be on a chair, and all of the trash is still present. That smaller photo is a hot Photoshopped mess*. Not only was the trash removed, so was the edge of his sleeve. There's no blue reflection (except a small bit towards the elbow end, and even that is actually probablyshadow from that book on the table) because even if he was there, there was stuff between him and the table surface at the time the photo was taken. Having said that, I don't think he'd go to the trouble of adding the trash reflections, messing up the space where the trash should have been, and generally making the photo look worse just to "add trash" and then get rid of it. I think the trash, at least, was definitely genuinely there the whole time. On the other hand, this is a guy known for misrepresenting facts (that "review" that was really just an acknowledgement of publication), drawing unsupported conclusions (Jacques and Goodkind came to Olympia *because* it's Stanek's hometown), and being heavily suspected of sockpuppeting. I fully believe that he *would* Photoshop if he thought he'd get away with it. I'm just not convinced that he Photoshopped (especially given the relative quality of the two larger snaps) in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Just out of curiosity, who's Brian Jacques? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pika Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Just out of curiosity, who's Brian Jacques? he writes this whole series of rodent snuff novels.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pita Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 They're actually not bad for 13 year olds. It's how I found out about repetitive fantasy: read a Redwall novel, you've read them all. Except for the one with the scary foxes. I loved that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pika Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I started reading them I guess when I was 13 or 14 and read a whole bunch of them.. but then, and it could just be me.. They just sort of got to me and I didn't like them anymore.. had they been humans I'd not have had the same reaction to them I think.. the Violence and death.. But it being cute mice and badgers and foxes and stuff slashing each other to pieces and dieing.. I just didn't like it. I'd certainly not reccomend them to any kids.. Best way I can really describe them is if Quentin Tarintino decided to adapt The Wind in the Willows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pita Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 They were violent, yes, but I never got sickened by them. Maybe we're very different. I read 12, thought "I think they're a little bit similar" and, at book 15, decided to stop, because they were all pretty much the same. If Tarantino had written Redwall it would have been so much more awesomer... It would have been awesomazing. I can just imagine Martin going all katana on the cat (whose name I can't remember now and can't be bothered to go to the bookcase and check... was it Tsarmina?), and then saying a really awesome version of "Die, motherfucker". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophelia Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 FWIW, when I glanced at the pictures with Brian Jacques I didn't think they were obviously Photoshopped. I just figured Stanek wasn't sitting in a chair; he was squatting at the edge of the desk there, so the position of his legs was off from one might otherwise expect them to be. Of course, if there are versions with more obvious and/or proven Photoshopping, my opinion will easily change. Hmm. I remember when I first found out about Stanek, on the board, and the photoshopping thing was mentioned, I wasn't convinced the legs were 'obviously missing'. I also didn't see why someone would bother to photoshop a picture of themselves with an author, when, um, in my experience it's quite easy to get a pic of oneself with an author. Didn't see why it was worth photoshopping it in the hope viewers would say "wow, he was actually sitting NEXT TO <author I have never heard of>!!". I was sceptical, so I googled it. But then I found a blog which posted a link to a file on Stanek's own website, which showed the exact same picture but without Stanek in it. The blogger was mocking Stanek for actually having left the non-photoshopped original in his filespace. This convinced me Stanek really had, bizzarely, photoshopped himself into the pic. Of course I can't check now that the link was a true one and have no recollection of who the blogger was (it seems to have disappeared from google). I might think I had imagined it if Stanek himself hadn't referred to "supposed testimonials from persons who've said that both Brian Jacques publicist and his webmaster have said the photo is fake or that so and so has "seen" the original (without me in them). I guess I'm supposed to have photoshopped myself into the picture" *hopes Stanek doesn't send a squad of sockcoshpuppets to hunt down witnesses...* Did anyone else see that link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdanel Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I've seen the original picture without Stanek too but I don't have the link. IIRC he cut out a child from the picture to make room for himself at the table. Otherwise the pictures were identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 If even half the Stanek stuff in this thread is true then... wow. He probably needs some kind of psychiatric intervention because even if this stuff isn't harming anyone per se, it can't be healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Hmm. I remember when I first found out about Stanek, on the board, and the photoshopping thing was mentioned, I wasn't convinced the legs were 'obviously missing'. I also didn't see why someone would bother to photoshop a picture of themselves with an author, when, um, in my experience it's quite easy to get a pic of oneself with an author. Didn't see why it was worth photoshopping it in the hope viewers would say "wow, he was actually sitting NEXT TO <author I have never heard of>!!". I was sceptical, so I googled it. But then I found a blog which posted a link to a file on Stanek's own website, which showed the exact same picture but without Stanek in it. The blogger was mocking Stanek for actually having left the non-photoshopped original in his filespace. This convinced me Stanek really had, bizzarely, photoshopped himself into the pic. Of course I can't check now that the link was a true one and have no recollection of who the blogger was (it seems to have disappeared from google). I might think I had imagined it if Stanek himself hadn't referred to "supposed testimonials from persons who've said that both Brian Jacques publicist and his webmaster have said the photo is fake or that so and so has "seen" the original (without me in them). I guess I'm supposed to have photoshopped myself into the picture" *hopes Stanek doesn't send a squad of sockcoshpuppets to hunt down witnesses...* Did anyone else see that link? It was Crapauthors.com, which unfortunately no longer exists. They also had a comment from Brian Jacques' webmaster that said Jacques had no idea who this guy was and certainly wasn't there as a joint-signing thing. As far as I can tell Jacques doesn't have a forum as such, but he does have an official website so I suppose people can try to contact the webmaster there for the real score. I must admit to a certain wearying tiredness at this situation. With Goodkind it's amusing that the guy is so full of himself and thinks his craptacular books are philosophical masterpieces, but at least he has a huge following and you can kind of see where he gets his reinforcement from. With Stanek it's just weird and disturbing. I think whoever made the post about narcissic disorder may have been on the money, and this guy has made a lot of people's lives a pain in the ass. I'm not sure if we should be baiting him further when there's plenty of decent books to talk about, y'know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawnliee Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I'm attempting to write up a collection of all the evidence against Stanek and make a definitive chronicle of his....exploits. Today, my research took me to Audible.com, where Robert Stanek himself provided the narration for several of his books. And the critics raved: "I made the mistake of purchasing this title without listening to a sample, as suggested by a previous reviewer. My Bad!!! The author is a poor narrator! It often sound as if he were inebriated. He slurs his words and his sentences run into each other. It is often difficult to determine when a new chapter begins." So, being curious, I clicked "sample" directly beneath the picture of the book and listened to Stanek narrating his work. And I have to say, it was a good thing I wasn't drinking anything at that time, because I would have spit it all over my keyboard. Check it out: http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?productID=BK_REAG_000072&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.