The closest source I have to hand "the doctrine that knowledge, truth and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute" does seem to cover some of the arguments dealing with Goodreads' censorship. I don't deny that the world's a complex place but when you get down to the nitty gritty I don't see a third space we've carved out for yourselves between relative and absolute values. Literature is not just a social pursuit - if it was, it would be a hobby. Name an education free of the teaching of it in our society? And why would it be universal to our society in that way? It is, in Donne's sense, involved with our social sphere in a way that buying small-gauge railway models is not. But if you are determined that literature is just a social pursuit then indeed, we have no further point to discuss.
Amazon are compelling us. One may wish to view it simply as they are offering each of us a choice, and that if sufficient numbers of us choose then we will have in effect voted to change our society - in ways we may not have considered, in ways we may not want, in ways that a minority of us who have never purchased anything from them are powerless to resist. They are no more compelling us than cigarette manufacturers, or the government, or drug dealers, or manufacturers of greenhouse gases, or the nazis, and so on, and so on. I see the logic of laissez-faire capitalism, even extended to the cultural and social sphere.
I think choice is worshipped as the paramount right by the penetration of society by the free market. I think we are frequently presented with choice where our freedom to decide is foreclosed: that we are kept "poor" to choose "cheap"; that a rich man's definition of choice is not that of the poor. To a great degree the strengths of civilised society have stepped forward from a balance of rights, not the fetishisation of choice. No one smokes to die: the issue for me is that choice is engineered to facilitate the option for death, because it is financially beneficial to a few, and that generally it is noticeable that those who rate the importance of choice most high, anecdotally, often are not those paying the price.
I would curtail choice when it comes to the issue of global warming because to be the last living thing on earth and to be able to say "Well, they had a choice" is an empty a philosophy as one could wish for.
Have you checked out your local independent book shop recently? Mine is amazing, they can get most books within 24 hours of ordering, they have a loyalty card scheme that over the books purchased more than matches Amazon's discounts. Also they pay their taxes and have happy, engaged staff who are more than happy to talk about books and offer recommendations. Somehow I don't think my local shop is unique.
Goodreads offers a wide choice of buying options, including iBookstore and Kobo (and Amazon, of course). The buying options can also be geo-sensitive, linking to national or regional chains, depending on the user's location. It is a minor part of their offering but Goodreads do sell books. They offer Goodreads authors the chance to sell ebooks directly through Goodreads, at quite favourable terms. It is reasonable to ask why Amazon has found it worthwhile to buy Goodreads. Not doing anything wouldn't make sense - less sense than jeopardising Goodreads' perceived neutrality. The obvious answer is that Amazon are increasing their influence on the whole of the book value chain with a view to funnelling more sales into Amazon. Goodreads and others like it are both the top and tail of the book selling value chain. That is, they are a post-sales forum for readers to air their views. These reviews, EVEN THE CRAPPY ONES, though, can stimulate further sales - or discourage them. Should Amazon want to - and I've no evidence they plan to - they could do subtle things such as create an algorithm which gave prominence to titles with 3+ ratings in their inter-reader updates, thus focusing on titles more likely to stimulate sales. Amazon can afford to have an aggressive ten-year plan and a passive, moderate short-term plan. Certainly they are putting in place everything they need to limit future competition. As far as I was concerned I waited, but I didn't like what they were doing and because of that, I took my "business" elsewhere. And there will always be an elsewhere, no matter how small. The most immediate problem could be for the high street book stores. Best sellers don't really make much difference to Amazon's sales model. An online seller has the same investment, expenditure and return on any given book, regardless of its popularity. For a bricks and mortar bookseller, it makes a big difference. A big part of a highest seller's expense is rental, If you amortise total floor space across available shelving, you can work out the cost of parking a slow seller vs a best seller and the consequent reduction in margin.
Goodread's data sharing for recommendations is painfully superficial (I work in this IT area; I know what I'm talking about), and its attempts at positioning Amazon as a company of passionate book lovers is embarrassing. There may be Amazon employees who "love the fuck out of some books", as I've seen elsewhere quaintly claimed, but there's a vast difference between loving titles and valuing books - and the latter is not theirs to control, but the company's.
My other reservations are personal and belong in a different discussion.
"Arthur C. Clarke may have been the worst great writer I can think of
(probably along with Robert A. Heinlein and Isaac Asimov). Clarke’s prose is
workmanlike at the best of times, his characters are emotional ciphers, his
dialogue is seldom real, his plots are more like giant landscapes than any
credible unfolding of events involving real people, and style-wise he happily
breaks every rule of Good Writing. Clarke doesn't care. And know what? Neither
do I. Some of things Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein
wrote are still among my favourite novels. The rest of this review can be found
on my blog."
This is the review I posted on Booklikes and on my blog:
"Arthur C. Clarke may have been the worst great writer I can think of
(probably along with Robert A. Heinlein and Isaac Asimov). Clarke’s prose is
workmanlike at the best of times, his characters are emotional ciphers, his
dialogue is seldom real, his plots are more like giant landscapes than any
credible unfolding of events involving real people, and style-wise he happily
breaks every rule of Good Writing. Clarke doesn't care. And know what? Neither
do I. Some of things Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein
wrote are still among my favourite novels. In genre fiction, if I pick up any
modern novel, basically the villains are just cardboard characters that have to
be locked up or arrested or shot by the good guys. Nowadays modern Crime
Fiction is an entertainment genre and it’s huge business (in Britain around 30%
of all the fiction published belongs to the Crime Fiction section). Crime
Fiction is all about resolution, which you don’t get in real life. Although I
have a bit of a reaction to this, it can be very good entertainment if it’s
done properly. Along with lots of other readers, I like the way I get sucked
into Clarke’s bigger-than-space narratives. I get excited along with his
cardboard but engaging characters in the vast spaces, unique vistas he shows
us. When I read Clarke, I know I’m reading a fellow geek, a non-artsy-fartsy
guy, who was able to produce the wonderful trick of writing Fiction that
resembled literary work. Nay, I must not think thus…. Something that is
literary. Better than, in some cases. This long preamble takes us to the novel
at hand: “A Bullet for Carlos” by Giacomo Giammatteo. Was the constant POV
shifting annoying sometimes? Absolutely. Does Giammatteo always move skillfully
between the main character’s first-person account (Connie’s) and omniscient
third-person narration? No, not by a long shot. Is it comparable with the best
Crime Fiction out there today? Nope. Is it highfalutin literature? No. But it
was all so damn fun. "
This is what I got from GR’s staff:
“Hi Manuel, We're reaching out because your review of A Bullet For Carlos
by Giacomo Giammatteo was recently brought to our attention. It looks like the
review was written for a different book. Would you mind moving the review to
the correct book within the next three days? If not, we will have to remove it
from the site, as it doesn't belong on that book's page. Here's how to move a
review: 1. Click here to navigate to your review. 2. Click on "edit"
at the far right. 3. Your review edit screen will open. Copy the text of your
review and paste it into a safe location. 4. Scroll down and click on
"remove from my books." 5. Navigate to the correct book by searching
for it in the search bar at the top of the page, and add it to your
"read" shelf. 6. Your review screen will open. Paste the text of your
review into the review field and click "save." Please let us know if
you run into any trouble with this - we'd be happy to help. Sincerely, The
Goodreads Team”
This is what I got from the author (Giacomo Dimmatteo), posted on my blog:
"Manuel: the review states it is for A Bullet For Carlos, by Giacomo
Giammatteo, but the review is for Arthur C. Clarke."
This is what I posted on GR and my blog:
"I'll post here the relevant section for clarity's sake:
The review is for "A Bullet for Carlos." You're not reading the
review properly. I'll post here the relevant section for clarity's sake: "[..]
When I read Clarke, I know I’m reading a fellow geek, a non-artsy-fartsy guy,
who was able to produce the wonderful trick of writing Fiction that resembled
literary work. Nay, I must not think thus…. Something that is literary. Better
than, in some cases. This long preamble takes us to the novel at hand: “A
Bullet for Carlos” by Giacomo Giammatteo. Was the constant POV shifting
annoying sometimes? Absolutely. Does Giammatteo always move skillfully between
the main character’s first-person account (Connie’s) and omniscient
third-person narration? No, not by a long shot. Is it comparable with the best
Crime Fiction out there today? Nope. Is it highfalutin literature? No. But it
was all so damn fun."
This is the email I sent to GR’s:
“The review is for "A Bullet for Carlos." You're not reading the
review properly. I'll post here the relevant section in bold for clarity's
sake: "[..] When I read Clarke, I know I’m reading a fellow geek, a
non-artsy-fartsy guy, who was able to produce the wonderful trick of writing
Fiction that resembled literary work. Nay, I must not think thus…. Something
that is literary. Better than, in some cases. This long preamble takes
us to the novel at hand: “A Bullet for Carlos” by Giacomo Giammatteo. Was
the constant POV shifting annoying sometimes? Absolutely. Does Giammatteo
always move skillfully between the main character’s first-person account
(Connie’s) and omniscient third-person narration? No, not by a long shot. Is it
comparable with the best Crime Fiction out there today? Nope. Is it highfalutin
literature? No. But it was all so damn fun."
As you can see, I make a connection between Clarke's work and Giammatteo's
book. What I did has a name: "Close Reading". I don't take kindly to
this kind of interference. MAAntão“
Bottom-line: I've been entirely absent from GR's, apart from maintaining my
book repository there, just in case. In the past I'd several reviews deleted
because of stuff like these. That's why I left. I see everything is just the
same. Same old, same old...I don't know why I bother.
I just wish GR's read the
reviews properly. Do they read them or do they just skim? They just have to
read the review to understand what it's about, and not take into account the
fact the review was flagged by the author.
They skim. It's like that in
Amazon's customer service dept too. You have to tell them to "read an
email carefully, twice, before responding based on past performance"
before you get any quality reading from them. They get points for how many
fires they can put out quickly, not for how well the fire stays dead.
I'm bruised all over...morons
(author and gr's staff)...I DELETED MY ACCOUNT! BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING
WITH BL's LATELY I JUST LOADED MY STUFF AGAIN!!!! BIG FU"#$%&NG
MISTAKE!
Live and learn, my friend.
GR's owned by Amazon. While I like some of their services, the reviewing side
of things on any of their sites is suspect at best. I got out before they
started browbeating people for reviews. I was getting browbeaten by fellow fans
of certain genres for defending things like the Star Wars prequels or pulp
authors from the 20s and 30s. Things apparently got worse after I left, but now
it's the commercial side rather than the end users doing it.
I certainly didn't need any
additional reasons for not returning to GR (let alone posting any reviews
there), but if I *had* needed any, this would have been 187 too many (187 is
the word count of GR's response to your review, at least by Word's reckoning).
You're also absolutely right
Themis. I don't understand how can they waste the effort on sending me the
email, when they could have spend the time reading the review. What I don't
believe (i REFUSE) to believe is the fact that they'are siding with the writer,
even when they probably know is in the wrong (admiting they read the review to
begin with)...
Yes. That seems to be the
problem Obsidian. Or maybe my English is not up to par. Or maybe I just don't
know what I'm doing or saying... Or maybe I've just gone bonkers without my
noticing it...I'm flabbergasted!!
At least this seems to endorse
my decision to move away from GR. The former sense of community among
readers/reviewers does seem to be diminished and further compromised by the
apparent intrusion of corporate interests, which is worrying for the quality of
feedback and debate. In the long run I suspect such sanitizing may prove
counter productive.
All it takes is ONE complaint
by an author and any review is up for censoring on GR now. I'm sorry you are
dealing with this [on your blog no less] but I hope you lambast the
writer.
Every time I even "wonder" about perhaps, maybe just a smidge, going
back to GR I hear something like this and it just reinforces that I CAN'T go
back to a place like that.
I'll comment on your blog later this evening, unless you'd rather I didn't :-D
reading the whole thing again,
what they're going to get you for is posting a NON-majority of your review on
GR with a link to the rest. That is how they shut out my reviews now.
Bookstooge is right - they're
going to claim that the review -as it stands on GR- isn't a review of the book
by that author; they really don't like review summaries that redirect the
reader off GR at all. Because the portion you posted on GR is the preamble of
your full review, and doesn't mention the author's work at all, they'll use it
as justification for deletion.
Of course if they weren't sell-outs to censorship in the first place, nobody
would feel the need to redirect people to off site reviews.
Murder by Death. You're quite
right of course. It's a battle lost. These corporate types only see what they
wanna see. No use arguing. But what about the author? Why do they loose sleep
over things like these?
I've just received a twitter
notification from the author repeating the same stuff he left on my blog
previously...I'm speechless...I told him to go and re-read my review. If he has
any doubts, I'm available to give private tutoring...
