Posted on 02/14/2004 2:33:08 PM PST by Orange1998
Close observers of Amazon.com noticed something peculiar this week: The company's Canadian site had suddenly revealed the identities of thousands of people who had anonymously posted book reviews on the U.S. site under signatures like "a reader from New York."
The weeklong glitch, which Amazon fixed after outed reviewers complained, provided a rare glimpse at how writers and readers are wielding the online reviews as a tool to promote or pan a book -- when they think no one is watching.
John Rechy, the author of the best-selling 1963 novel, "City of Night," and winner of the PEN-USA-WEST award for lifetime achievement, was one of several prominent authors who have apparently pseudonymously written themselves five-star reviews, Amazon's highest rating. Rechy, who laughed about it when approached, sees it as a means to survival when online stars mean sales.
"That anybody is allowed to come in and anonymously trash a book to me is absurd," said Rechy, who, having been caught, freely admitted to praising his new book, "The Life and Adventures of Lyle Clemens," on Amazon under the signature "a reader from Chicago." "How to strike back? Just go in and rebut every single one of them."
Rechy is in good company. Walt Whitman and Anthony Burgess both famously reviewed their own books under assumed names. But several modern-day writers said the Internet, where anyone from your mother to your ex-agent can anonymously broadcast an opinion of your work, has created a more urgent need for self-defense.
Under Amazon's system, any user of the site may submit a review without publicly providing any personal information (or evidence of having read the book). The accidental posting of real names on the Canada site was for many a reminder that anonymity on the Internet is seldom a sure thing. It was the result of a technical glitch that occurred when the company performed a routine transfer of reviews from the U.S. site, the company said.
"It was an unfortunate error," said Patricia Smith, an Amazon spokesperson. "We'll examine whatever happened and make sure it won't happen again."
But even with reviewer privacy restored, many people say Amazon's pages have turned into what one writer called "a rhetorical war," where friends and family members are regularly corralled to write glowing reviews and each negative one is scrutinized for the digital fingerprints of known enemies.
One well-known writer admitted privately -- and somewhat gleefully -- to anonymously criticizing a more prominent novelist who he felt had unfairly reaped critical praise for years. She regularly posts responses, or at least he thinks it is her, but the elegant rebuttals of his reviews are also written from behind a pseudonym.
Numbering 10 million and growing by tens of thousands each week, the reader reviews are the most popular feature of the Amazon's sites, according to the company, which also culls reviews from more traditional critics like Publisher's Weekly. Many authors applaud the democracy of allowing readers to voice their opinions, and rejoice when they see a new one posted -- so long as it is positive.
But some authors say it is ironic that while they can for the first time face their critics on equal footing, so many people on both sides choose to remain anonymous. And some charge that the same anonymity that encourages more people to discuss books also spurs them to write reviews that they would never otherwise attach their names to.
Jonathan Franzen, author of "The Corrections," winner of the National Book Award, said that a first novel by Tom Bissell last fall was "crudely and absurdly savaged" on Amazon in anonymous reviews he believes were posted by a group of writers whom Bissell had previously written about in the literary magazine The Believer.
"With the really flamingly negative reviews, I think it's always worth asking yourself what kind of person has time to write them," Franzen said. "I know that the times when I've been tempted to write a nasty review online, I have never had attractive motives." Franzen declined to say whether he had ever given in to such temptation.
The suspicion that the same group of writers, known as the "Underground Literary Alliance," had anonymously attacked his friend Heidi Julavits prompted the novelist Dave Eggers to write a review last August calling Julavits' first novel "one of the best books of the year."
Eggers, whose memoir, "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius," made him a literary celebrity, chose to post his review as "a reader from St. Louis, MO." But the review appeared under the name "David K Eggers" on Amazon's Canadian site on Monday, and Eggers confirmed in an email message that he had written it.
"I've done that one or two times before, when I like a book and the reviews on Amazon seem bizarre," Eggers said. "In this case I just tried to bring back some balance."
Michael Jackman, a member of the Alliance, which champions "underground writing" and has been critical of contemporary writers' focus on themselves rather than the wider world, called the presumption that his group had written the anonymous reviews "the height of arrogance."
"It's interesting that they find some negative reviews and assume that the reason for it must be partisan ax-grinding and not real taste," Jackman said. "I mean, there's no accounting for taste, is there?" Whether it is arrogance, paranoia or simply common sense, positive reviews come under suspicion too.
"Could the five-star reviews (so far all but one from NY, NY) be the work of the author's friends?" asked a one-star review by "A reader from Washington, DC" on the review page for Susan Braudy's "Family Circle," a biography of Kathy Boudin, a former member of the Weather Underground, and her family.
Reviews are not the only features Amazon writers take advantage of to improve their image on the site. Many authors have been known to list their own books as an alternate recommendation for any given book, and to compile lists of favorite books -- often consulted by browsing customers -- with their own at the top. One even bought up copies of his own books to boost his ranking on the site, which changes by the hour.
Books are far from the only products subject to anonymous reviewing these days. The growth of electronic commerce has spawned a new kind of critical authority -- one's peers. On Amazon alone, customers depend on each other for advice on CDs, DVDs, garden tools and electronic equipment. On dozens of other Web sites, average citizens anonymously review restaurants, software, even teachers.
The word-of-mouth advice is widely seen as empowering to consumers who no longer have to rely on privileged critics who have access to a television station or printing press to disseminate their opinions. But just how reliable the new authorities is the subject of increasing debate, at least among active Amazon users.
As the Amazon sites expand visitors are seen as an increasingly important venue. Mark Moskowitz, an independent filmmaker, sent an email message to about 3,000 people last week asking them to review the DVD of his film, "Stone Reader," which goes on sale next week.
"If you didn't see it but heard it was good, go ahead and post anyway, (what the heck)" Moskowitz' told them. "It doesn't obligate you for anything, even the truth,"
Despite the widespread presumption that they are stacked, both readers and writers say the reviews affect sales, especially for books by new writers that are not widely reviewed elsewhere.
To increase the credibility of the reader reviews, Amazon has introduced a means for users to vote on the quality of each review, and a corresponding ranking of the top 1,000 reviewers. But the site's discussion boards are full of carping about how people are trying to play that system, too. Prolific reviewers speculate that Harriet Klausner, 55, who has long reigned as No. 1, cannot possible read all the books she reviews.
In a telephone interview, Klausner, in turn, accused the No. 2 reviewer of getting people to vote for him and against her in a "desperate attempt to be No. 1."
But such concerns among reviewers pale beside those shared by a range of naturally obsessive writers.
Late last month on her radio talkshow, Dr. Laura Schlessinger used a call about an anonymous letter to vent her distress over some of her Amazon reviewers, who she described as "scummy, creepy, people."
The novelist A.M. Homes said the one Amazon review that has stuck in her mind was a negative one from someone who signed off "A reader from Chevy Chase," which is her hometown.
"The world of books is a very small world these days, and any time someone takes the time to share their opinion it's incredible," Homes said. "But I do want to know who that person from Chevy Chase was and what their problem with me really is."
Most of the reivews of conservative books are positive and helpful. Just ignore negative reviews of conservative books as they are politically motivated and probably written by people who did not read the book.
As for Amazon, they should give reviewers the option of being anonymous or public. Then people could decide how much credence to put in the anonymous. The problem here is how can they be sure who anyone is. Maybe someone could come up with a system for persons like myself, who do NOT want to be private, so we could prove to others on the net who we are. Kindda like a credit card without the credit.
Another dead giveaway is a missing "Hump" on the Bell-Shaped curve. It seems that many vendors have no median, but either get horrible reviews, or glowing ones, as the "war" proceeds. This is particularly true for camera dealers and the like, and especially so for web hosting reviews.
We always used to laugh and ridicule the Ziff Davis computer magazine reviews: You could actually measure how many column inches of four color were run by a company and it would be directly proportional to how many "Stars" their reviewers gave it.
In short, the reviews offer the vaguest hints, but are of little value in making critical decisions. Last year, I bought a very good digital camera from a heavily advertised dealer, after reading reviews, and noting that they were either "10's" or "2"'s.
My experience with the dealer tended toward the "2", and in the space of six months, now checking the dealer rating, they went from a "9" to a "6"..so their employees must have run out of IP Adresses!
I just checked through the first dozen or so of the 607 "Living History" reviews, and the first dozen or so of the 1,749 "Treason : Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" reviews. Coulter has more than half 5 star reviews, Hillary does not. Of course, Amazon is in the business of selling books, so it would make sense for them to do some editing on books that get very bad reviews, like you know what.
It does.Many reviewers on Amazon do so under their real names.
The fun started here when the anonymous system sprung a leak and displayed the real names (at least based upon Amazon UserID, which is typically verified by credit card sales, for most folks) of those reviewers who thought that they had done so anonymously.
But it seems like you can't tell which of the folks are truly verified by a verified credit card sale. For example, currently the third review of Living History is by V I Lenin of Santa Monica CA. This name looks just like the real names. Yes, I know, I shouldn't be complaining to you.
My scheme worked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.