Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

What Amazon doesn't want you to know.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Margaret Shiels - 12 Nov 2005 12:24 GMT
Gentle uk.rec.photo.misc 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.
Tony   Polson - 12 Nov 2005 17:45 GMT
>Gentle uk.rec.photo.misc reader,
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>specify the guidelines with which my review did not comply. She replied
>that she could not be specific.

Your message does not comply with the guidelines for posting to this
newsgroup because it is off-topic for uk.r.p.m.  

Please don't post here again.
Steve - 15 Nov 2005 14:02 GMT
> 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...

You are aware, I hope, that the scriptures were not written in English, and
that 'may' and 'might' are often alternative translations. Maybe Amazon
rejected your review because you're obviously a semi-literate, ignorant
fuckwit...
Tumbleweed - 15 Nov 2005 17:20 GMT
>> 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
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> rejected your review because you're obviously a semi-literate, ignorant
> fuckwit...

LOL, pity she aint gonna read this

Signature

Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Margaret Shiels - 19 Nov 2005 01:47 GMT
> Your message does not comply with the guidelines for posting to this
> newsgroup because it is off-topic for uk.r.p.m.
> Please don't post here again.

Really? So you chaps buy nothing from Amazon then? Too this-century for
you? ;-)

>> 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...

You are aware, I hope, that the scriptures were not written in English, and
> that 'may' and 'might' are often alternative translations. Maybe Amazon
> rejected your review because you're obviously a semi-literate, ignorant
> fuckwit...

You are aware, I hope, that the Bible is the most scrupulously edited
book of all time. I think you'll find that the biblical uses of "may"
and "might" are not alternative translations. "Might" is used in
past-tense constructions, "may" for present and future – just as God
intended ;-)

Hope this helps.

Margaret
John Cartmell - 19 Nov 2005 07:58 GMT
> You are aware, I hope, that the Bible is the most scrupulously edited
> book of all time. I think you'll find that the biblical uses of "may"
> and "might" are not alternative translations. "Might" is used in
> past-tense constructions, "may" for present and future - just as God
> intended ;-)

I appreciate that, were you to take this comment where it is appropriate, it
would be ripped apart for its naivity - but it really doesn't fit in a group
for photography. Do take it to a forum for biblical exigesis where you will
find it uncomfortable but educational.

Signature

    John Cartmell    john@ followed by finnybank.com     0845 006 8822
    Qercus magazine    FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527        www.finnybank.com
    Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
                                                     

Margaret Shiels - 19 Nov 2005 11:35 GMT
>> You are aware, I hope, that the Bible is the most scrupulously edited
>> book of all time. I think you'll find that the biblical uses of "may"
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> would be ripped apart for its naivity - but it really doesn't fit in a group
> for photography.

My original post concerned Amazon's reluctance to post a perfectly
valid criticism of a book, and a warning against monopolies. Since a
great many people buy from Amazon, and not just books, we should be
able to trust them.

> Do take it to a forum for biblical exigesis where you will
> find it uncomfortable but educational.

It was your poison-penned colleague Steve who picked up on this
irrelevance, not me. But if you and he wish to argue the point then so
be it. I think you'll find that my comments re grammar are on the
money. If somebody accuses me of being ignorant and semi-literate (and
now naive) then he'd better have the evidence to support the insult.

Margaret
John Cartmell - 19 Nov 2005 12:02 GMT
> >> You are aware, I hope, that the Bible is the most scrupulously edited
> >> book of all time. I think you'll find that the biblical uses of "may"
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> > it would be ripped apart for its naivity - but it really doesn't fit in a
> > group for photography.

> My original post concerned Amazon's reluctance to post a perfectly valid
> criticism of a book, and a warning against monopolies. Since a great many
> people buy from Amazon, and not just books, we should be able to trust
> them.

> > Do take it to a forum for biblical exigesis where you will find it
> > uncomfortable but educational.

> It was your poison-penned colleague Steve who picked up on this
> irrelevance, not me. But if you and he wish to argue the point then so be
> it. I think you'll find that my comments re grammar are on the money. If
> somebody accuses me of being ignorant and semi-literate (and now naive)
> then he'd better have the evidence to support the insult.

You refer to the Bible as if it's one book;
you talk about scrupulous editing whereas, in recent times (the last 1600
years) there have been unreasonable pressures stopping such editing;
you seem to imaging that the translations are simple word-for-word code
exchanges;
&c.

I'd say your Biblical discussion level is appropriate to a photography
newsgroup - but it's still very off-topic here. End.

Signature

    John Cartmell    john@ followed by finnybank.com     0845 006 8822
    Qercus magazine    FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527        www.finnybank.com
    Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
                                                     

Margaret Shiels - 19 Nov 2005 12:32 GMT
> You refer to the Bible as if it's one book;
> you talk about scrupulous editing whereas, in recent times (the last 1600
> years) there have been unreasonable pressures stopping such editing;
> you seem to imaging that the translations are simple word-for-word code
> exchanges;
> &c.

I'm discussing the form not the content. And the form is always spot on.

> I'd say your Biblical discussion level is appropriate to a photography
> newsgroup - but it's still very off-topic here. End.

Talk to Steve. He's the one who embarked on a biblical discussion. My
post concerned Amazon.

Margaret
Tumbleweed - 19 Nov 2005 18:43 GMT
>> You refer to the Bible as if it's one book;
>> you talk about scrupulous editing whereas, in recent times (the last 1600
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Talk to Steve. He's the one who embarked on a biblical discussion. My post
> concerned Amazon.

Doh! Go back and look at the discussion, you started talk of the scriptures
in your original post you moron! Seems your knowledge of usenet etiquette,
book criticism and what you have written are all on a par, i.e dismal.

*PLONK*

Signature

Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Justin C - 19 Nov 2005 12:31 GMT
[snip]

> If somebody accuses me of being
[...]
> naive then he'd better have the evidence to support the insult.

Your original post is all the evidence we need Margaret.

*PLONK*

    Justin.

Signature

Justin C, by the sea.

GwG - 19 Nov 2005 13:02 GMT
If somebody accuses me of being ignorant and semi-literate (and
> now naive) then he'd better have the evidence to support the insult.

Does anyone else find it very strange that this is the only group that
Margaret Shiels has replied  to?
Margaret Shiels - 19 Nov 2005 18:29 GMT
>  If somebody accuses me of being ignorant and semi-literate (and
>> now naive) then he'd better have the evidence to support the insult.
>
> Does anyone else find it very strange that this is the only group that
> Margaret Shiels has replied  to?

It is? News to Margaret ;-)
Geoff Berrow - 19 Nov 2005 22:00 GMT
Message-ID: <2005111918294911272%margaretnospamplz@hotmailcom> from
Margaret Shiels contained the following:

>> Does anyone else find it very strange that this is the only group that
>> Margaret Shiels has replied  to?
>
>It is? News to Margaret ;-)

Well if you are indeed she, you are silent in uk.rec.humour.

Mind you, that's probably wise.
Signature

Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

ian - 19 Nov 2005 12:00 GMT
>> Your message does not comply with the guidelines for posting to this
>> newsgroup because it is off-topic for uk.r.p.m.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Margaret

Would this  not be more appropriate in alt.writing.fiction ? as this is a
photographic group . The discusion of the relative merits of 2 works of
fiction is not what this group is for.
Signature

Output certified Microsoft free
Checked with Suse 10.0

Justin C - 19 Nov 2005 12:08 GMT
>> Your message does not comply with the guidelines for posting to this
>> newsgroup because it is off-topic for uk.r.p.m.
>> Please don't post here again.
>
> Really? So you chaps buy nothing from Amazon then? Too this-century for
> you? ;-)

Whether subscribers to this group (or any of the many, many others you
posted the original message to) buy from Amazon is irrelevant. This
group is for the discussion of matters photographic.

If the subscribers should be interested in the goings on at Amazon I'm
sure there are appropriate groups and, if not, then a Google would
usually find the information you want.

By your reasoning it should also be valid to discuss, in this group:
potatoes pasta pasties piss paper porcelain pepper pants pies etc.

    Justin.

Signature

Justin C, by the sea.

Margaret Shiels - 19 Nov 2005 12:33 GMT
>>> Your message does not comply with the guidelines for posting to this
>>> newsgroup because it is off-topic for uk.r.p.m.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> By your reasoning it should also be valid to discuss, in this group:
> potatoes pasta pasties piss paper porcelain pepper pants pies etc.

No, Justin, that's YOUR reasoning. And it's flawed.

Margaret
Michael J Davis - 21 Nov 2005 10:04 GMT
Margaret Shiels <margaret_nospamplz@hotmail.com> observed

>>>> Your message does not comply with the guidelines for posting to
>>>>this
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>No, Justin, that's YOUR reasoning. And it's flawed.

About as flawed as Amazon's logic in rejecting a review by someone who
couldn't get beyond page 36?

M
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
Signature

 Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><

Margaret Shiels - 26 Nov 2005 01:34 GMT
> Margaret Shiels <margaret_nospamplz@hotmail.com> observed
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> About as flawed as Amazon's logic in rejecting a review by someone who
> couldn't get beyond page 36?

But, Michael, this is common practice among book reviewers. I thought
everybody knew that.
Michael J Davis - 27 Nov 2005 10:37 GMT
Margaret Shiels <margaret_nospamplz@hotmail.com> observed

>> Margaret Shiels <margaret_nospamplz@hotmail.com> observed
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>But, Michael, this is common practice among book reviewers. I thought
>everybody knew that.

LOL!

But *admitting* it isn't!

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
Signature

 Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><

SL - 19 Nov 2005 19:47 GMT
>>> Your message does not comply with the guidelines for posting to this
>>> newsgroup because it is off-topic for uk.r.p.m.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Justin.

Have'nt a clue what Margaret's problem is but as to pies in footie grounds
(really on topic!), I belive Queen's Park has the best up in the North end
of the woods, though yet to try them.

May try and take photos tomorrow morning as it was really cold with lovely
blue skies (had to paint the bathroom last night/today, final coat
tomorrow).

Cheers,
Stephen
Edinburgh.
if - 20 Nov 2005 02:59 GMT
> Really? So you chaps buy nothing from Amazon then? Too this-century for
> you? ;-)

No, your stupid spamming is too last century, like your 'god'.

Plonk.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.