What Amazon doesn't want you to know.

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by Margaret Shiels, Nov 12, 2005.

  1. Gentle uk.telecom.voip reader,

    First, my apology for cross-posting to this NG. Be assured that this is
    a one-off. It will never happen again.

    My sole purpose is to draw your attention to what I believe are dubious
    practices by Amazon.co.uk. I also believe that at stake here is freedom
    of expression.

    Amazon have rejected my reader review of a novel by John McGahern. In
    the UK and Ireland it was published under the title, "That They May
    Face The Rising Sun". In the USA and elsewhere it's entitled simply
    "The Lake".

    You may have read it. You may even have thoroughly enjoyed it.

    That is not the issue. The issue is that Amazon refuse to publish my
    review. First, they ignored it. When it failed to appear, they fed me
    the excuse of their moderators being too busy to read it. Next they
    insisted (three times) that it did not comply with their review
    guidelines.

    I copied their guidelines to my Amazon correspondent and asked her to
    specify the guidelines with which my review did not comply. She replied
    that she could not be specific.

    When I threatened to expose Amazon on the net, they relented, and said
    that my review broke two of their rules. (It did not.) But I amended
    it, and you can read it below. You'll see that, although it's critical,
    there are other reviews on Amazon.co.uk that are far more critical than
    mine.

    So what's going on? Have they done a deal with McGahern's publisher? It
    would not surprise me; the book trade has became increasingly corrupt.
    Why do you think that only a small number of books get reviewed in the
    papers — and that they're the same books in each paper? Because they're
    the best books at that moment? Think again.

    Read the actual READER reviews on Amazon and see how they compare with
    the newspaper reviews. You will read lines like: "I bought this book
    because I believed all the hype. I was very disappointed."

    We are being conned.

    Anyhow, I dutifully submitted the amended review, with the assurance
    that it would appear within 5 days. It did not.

    The astute reader will understand that this could continue ad nauseam,
    with Amazon trying to wear me down so much that I would give up and
    forget it.

    I won't. Free speech and free expression are at issue here. Amazon now
    control something like 80% of book sales worldwide. They have killed
    the small bookseller. Soon the medium-sized book store will follow, and
    Amazon will have a monopoly.

    At that point they can do anything they please. Try posting a very
    critical book review then!

    Sincerely, and my apologies again for the cross-posting!

    Margaret Shiels

    --------------------

    [The review Amazon didn't want you to see:]

    When MIGHT is right.

    In his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul wrote of
    "those who are being lost, because they didn't receive the love of the
    truth, that they might be saved. (2:10)"

    What a shame that John McGahern didn't read his Scripture with a little
    more diligence; had he done so, he might not have botched the grammar
    in the very title of his book, and might instead have called it: "That
    They MIGHT Face the Rising Sun". If the poor English had ended there
    then all might have been well. As it is, when one gets past the title
    page, it's all downhill.

    The novel provides clear evidence that, once a writer's book is
    denounced by the Catholic Church, all subsequent work will be praised
    as literature. We need only think of the frightful Edna O'Brien....

    And literature is what this book clearly is not, at least not when it's
    read objectively, without the baggage of the encomia that have attached
    themselves to McGahern over the years, like limpets on a whale's
    buttocks.

    It's terrible. I could not get beyond page 36. I tried; I genuinely
    did. The lacklustre prose is indistinguishable from that of Alice
    Taylor – in fact Taylor's outdoes McGahern's quite often. There is a
    myth, no doubt put about by McGahern himself, that he overwrites
    excessively, then prunes remorselessly. If that's the case, then the
    out-takes of "TTMFTRS" must have been excruciatingly bad.

    He has no style, plain and simple – indeed I'd have preferred "plain
    and simple" rather than McGahern's weak and often cringe-making
    attempts at style. The English language seems foreign to him. It's
    English for Beginners, the vocabulary of the semi-educated. And one
    would think, to read McGahern, that Peter Mark Roget had never drawn
    breath. "Sure why use synonyms," he must reason, "when the one verb can
    be made to serve every situation?" Everybody "walks" for example; no
    sauntering, hastening, loping, striding or what have you. Clichés
    proliferate, and inept ones at that: a bird drops "like a stone" (the
    only time I ever saw a bird dropping like a stone was when my husband
    let fall a frozen chicken in the supermarket).

    All the characters speak with the same, dull, interchangeable voice.
    Nor does the dialogue always ring true; at one point, for example, a
    country person speaks the line, "None of us believes and we go", a
    usage I've never encountered in rural Leitrim.

    McGahern cannot write characters that engage me. Because all speak with
    the same voice, it was difficult to choose between them, and as a
    result, no one character held my attention.

    His narrative is even worse than his dialogue: "His eyes glittered on
    the pot as he waited, willing them to a boil." Classic Alice Taylor,
    that. I flipped through the pages and chose passages at random. There
    were no fine words or interesting turns of phrase that merited a
    mention. In fact, all I found was mediocre writing, hardly better than
    anything a schoolchild could write. And the syntax! Even that infamous
    torturer of English syntax Anita Desai could do no worse than: "The
    Shah rolled round the lake with the sheepdog in the front seat of the
    car every Sunday and stayed until he was given his tea at six."

    The dust jacket quotes the Observer; evidently it hailed McGahern as
    "Ireland's greatest living novelist". Whoever wrote that should hang
    his/her head in shame, and apologize at once to ... well, to everybody
    really; such poor writing as this does Ireland no favours.

    If I am wrong, and there truly is a great novel lurking between the
    covers of this book, then why on earth bury it beneath such dreadful
    prose? I honestly tried to allow this novel to grip me, but it failed
    dismally. Should I have persevered simply because it was written by
    "the finest Irish writer now working in prose"? The hell I should! Two
    out of ten, and that's being generous.
    Margaret Shiels, Nov 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Margaret Shiels

    Scope Guest

    Margaret Shiels wrote:
    > Gentle uk.telecom.voip reader,

    <clip clip>

    First of all, this is not the right group to post this stuff on..
    Secondly, I would not read such a long review myself, keep it short.
    Scope, Nov 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Margaret Shiels" <> wrote in message
    news:2005111201345075249%margaretnospamplz@gmxde...
    > Gentle uk.telecom.voip reader,
    >
    > First, my apology for cross-posting to this NG. Be assured that this is a
    > one-off. It will never happen again.
    >
    > My sole purpose is to draw your attention to what I believe are dubious
    > practices by Amazon.co.uk. I also believe that at stake here is freedom of
    > expression.
    >
    > Amazon have rejected my reader review of a novel by John McGahern. In the
    > UK and Ireland it was published under the title,


    I agree that it's absolutely appalling that they've rejected your reader
    review. I was just wondering recently whether they reject certain reviews.
    I've bought quite a few books from amazon which I have been disappointed
    with, and was wondering if they would accept any reviews I might submit. I
    suspected they might be reluctant to accept in-depth very negative reviews.
    This is understandable from their point of view -- they want to sell as many
    books as possible. On the other hand it would be useful for customers to
    have the very negative reviews so as they can make the best informed
    decision as to whether the book is a worthwhile purchase!
    Interesting Ian, Nov 13, 2005
    #3
  4. Margaret Shiels

    Bert Guest

    On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:34:50 +0000, Margaret Shiels broke in with:

    >Gentle uk.telecom.voip reader,


    .... who are not interested in your off-topic garbage.
    Bert, Nov 13, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    565
  2. Factual Info

    AOL (UK) - Learn What They Never Want You To Know

    Factual Info, May 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    492
    Jim Watt
    May 1, 2004
  3. Zygon Curry
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,136
  4. Frank  ess
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    437
    Frank ess
    Dec 12, 2004
  5. The Black Wibble

    Over 40? You KNOW you want one of these.......

    The Black Wibble, Nov 29, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    549
Loading...

Share This Page