You are here

Amazon reviewers think this masterpiece sucks

From "The Grapes of Wrath" to "1984" -- some amateur critics just can't stand the classics

Article at Salon.com

Comments

I'd say most of these folks are obvious trolls...and occassionally hilarious ones at that!
(Re: The Bible) "Man, this book is boring. All this weird stuff happens and it's harder to get into than Lord of the Rings. And what's up with the red writing and the LORD says stuff. All caps = rude, peter paul and mark, whoever the heck you are."
I might get struck by a bolt of lightning for cracking up at that one, but you have to admit, that's quality trolling.:)

from a New York cabbie than anyone on Amazon.com.

I assume this is a tongue in cheek comment. Here is one of the reviewers on Amazon:

E. Bukowsky's
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AC1K4OQOZ90RS/ref=cm_cr_tr_tbl_51_name

I am a public librarian who conducts and participates in book discussions regularly. My particular interests are legal and medical thrillers, suspense novels, and contemporary fiction.

So you would take the word of any cabbie over this librarian?

There are thousands of reviewers on Amazon that are experts in their field. If Joe Smith is a world renowned chemist am I am to disregard a review of a chemistry book by Joe Smith just because it is on Amazon?

Birdie said that she would take the review of any cabbie over a review on Amazon. Absurd statement.

Let us look at a specific example to show why that is absurd.

Book- Flying Flak Alley: Personal Accounts of World War II Bomber Crew Combat

There is a review of this book on Amazon by Michael OConnor. O'Connor is the author of two books on military aviation and numerous articles on the topic. In addition he is a public librarian. We should just disregard Mr. O'Connor's review because of someones prejudice about Amazon?

As a future educator/ librarian, should I have a problem with the plagiarism-- in that they don't cite the actual user whose review they are reposting in full? Hm. :-)