What Amazon doesn't want you to know.

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

  1. Gentle uk.telecom.broadband 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. Advertisements

  2. Margaret Shiels

    MinusNet Guest

    Margaret Shiels wrote


    Like the one you've invented?

    BTW birds can fly too well with a lump of lead up their arse.
     
    MinusNet, Nov 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Margaret Shiels

    chappycheeky Guest

    On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:36:30 +0000, Margaret Shiels

    [self pitying and self-indulgent rant snipped]

    It's their site, it's their decision. Stop whinging
     
    chappycheeky, Nov 12, 2005
    #3
  4. Margaret Shiels

    Mugwump Guest

    You wonder why they didn't publish when, by your own admission, you only
    read the first 36 pages and then picked passages at random. It reads
    more like a hatchet job of the author than a review of a book.
     
    Mugwump, Nov 12, 2005
    #4
  5. Margaret Shiels

    Bob Eager Guest

    I'd sum it up as 'religious nut'.
     
    Bob Eager, Nov 12, 2005
    #5
  6. You're right about that!

    PLONK!
     
    Brian Morrison, Nov 12, 2005
    #6
  7. Margaret Shiels

    Gizmo Guest

    I read up to that bit, then got bored.

    Did the OP's tale of woe get any better as the story progressed ?

    Some people have way to much time on their hands
     
    Gizmo, Nov 12, 2005
    #7
  8. Margaret Shiels

    steve Guest

    Does you newsreader automatically send a plonk message when you killfile
    or are you just an arse.
     
    steve, Nov 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Margaret Shiels

    steve Guest

    The quality of fuckwit is surely going downhill these days, c`mon stevie
    boy, you can do better than that.
     
    steve, Nov 13, 2005
    #9
  10. Margaret Shiels

    Spin Dryer Guest

    On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:36:30 +0000, [Margaret Shiels] said :-

    For a start, you didn't x-post, you multi-posted, making it
    effectively spam which can be auto-cancelled if servers allow cancel.
    So you're right, this is a one-off

    You are posting via Onetel, and if this is your account, it will be
    removed of course. Mind you, Onetel are pretty much clueless.


    Your report is so bad, it's no wonder it didn't pass the 'acceptable'
    team.


    "I could not get beyond page 36"


    Dopey bint, now stfu and go away
     
    Spin Dryer, Nov 13, 2005
    #10
  11. Margaret Shiels

    Ken Wheatley Guest

    I'd sum it up as 'religious nut who's succeeded in making large numbers of
    people read her poxy review'.
     
    Ken Wheatley, Nov 14, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.