Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / November 2005
What Amazon doesn't want you to know.
|
|
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.
|
|
|