A Klausner backlash?

[yendi]

So, seeing that Mick Farren has a new novel out, I went to the novel's listing at Amazon to add it to my wishlist. I scanned down to see the reviews, and saw that the only review was from the ubiquitous Harriet Klausner, the #1 Amazon reviewer who seems to write about 95 reviews a day. No surprise. What surprised me, however, is that, according to Amazon, "0 of 4 people found the following review helpful."

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a huge fan of Klausner's reviews. They tend to be pretty basic, and certainly aren't anything to write home about. But they usually provide a quick overview of the book, and certainly seem to show that she's read the novel. This one's no exception. Mind you, I wouldn't want to see it published alongside the stuff in Bookslut, but it's still readable, it highlights strengths and weakness of the book, and it gives me a much better idea of what the novel's about than the publisher's info. As Amazon reviews go, it's solid, and exactly what I want to know.

So why did four people reject it? My guess? Folks want Klausner to fall from her #1 ranking, whether it's because they've got another reviewer they want to see elevated, or they just don't like anyone at the top. I empathize with both motivations in theory, but I just don't think it's honorable to go around deliberately trying to sabotage her rating.

(Yes, some folks might genuinely have found the review unhelpful, but it would take some surprisingly high standards, and I sure don't see those standards being applied in similar situations at Amazon).

Personally, I'd like to see Amazon build a meta-moderating option into their system (similar to what Slashdot has), as otherwise, it's a tool that's rife for abuse.

And for the record, I clicked "yes," and said that Klausner's review was helpful to me. Not because I wanted to piss off the other four people, but because the review actually was helpful.

Comments

[fornorald.livejournal.com]

Yay! Another Mick Farren fan!

[elfwench.livejournal.com]

Or maybe people just aren't clicking as much as they used to?

[la-belledame.livejournal.com]

Klausner's reviews bother me because they usually read more like publicity blurbs and she seems to like every damn thing she reads. There are times when she's enthused about a book that I have read and reviewed and I wonder whether we've read the same book. Not that I'm necessarily "right" -- but there's something so uncritical and manufactured about her stuff.

Who's Mick Farren?

[yendi]

Oh, she certainly rarely hates books (you get a lot more negative feedback when you diss something people like than when you praise something people don't like). But this review, for example, warned me that the book was the first in the series, and that it doesn't resolve the plot completely. That alone is worthwhile.

Farren is a former rocker who's been writing messed-up sci-fi for a few decades now. He expanded to horror a few years ago (writing a four-novel vampire series that combined vampiric myths, Lovecraft, and all sorts of other stuff), and now looks to be playing a bit with fantasy.

[la-belledame.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the info -- I'll add him to the list....

[yendi]

Oh, and the first two novels in his vampire series were reviewed at a certain webzine. :-)

[la-belledame.livejournal.com]

Okay -- now I know why the name sounds familiar!