Among my Amazon.com reviews for Intellectual Morons are a few suspicious entries. It's not that they unduly knocked or praised my book that raised my curiosity. But that several reviewed Intellectual Morons alongside a half-dozen other works in the same week. I get paid, essentially, to read books, and I don't think I've ever read six real books in a week. These people are hobbyists (in other words, they hold down real jobs too), and in some instances are claiming to have read several dozen books in a week. J'accuse.
They get labelled "Top 1000 Reviewer" or "Top 50 Reviewer" by the book-selling behemoth. Judging by the content of their reviews, and the frequency with which they issue them, I have begun to question whether the "top" designation conveys an inverse meaning. Take N. P. Stathoulopoulos, an Amazon Top 1000 reviewer from Brooklyn, New York. The week he posted on Intellectual Morons, he reviewed nine other items including two books, a Noam Chomsky CD, and a Grand Theft Auto video game. I can't speak to the other items, but his review of Intellectual Morons reads more as a review of the dust jacket of Intellectual Morons.
Garth Risk Hallberg writes about the phenomenon of phantom reviewers on Slate.com in an article called "Who Is Grady Harp?" The title refers to a an Amazon reviewer who not only praised Hallberg's recent book on the popular online store, but "reviewed over 3,500 books, CDs, and movies for Amazon. In turn, he has attained a kind of celebrity: a No. 7 ranking; a prominent profile on the Web site; and, apparently, a following." Hallberg notes that Amazon's number one reviewer has averaged 45 book reviews a week for five years, which, he kindly notes, is "a pace that seems hard to credit, even from a professed speed-reader." This is a nice way of calling the woman a fraud, which she is. "John 'Gunny' Matlock," Hallberg points out, who "ranked No. 6 this spring, took a holiday from Amazon, according to Vick Mickunas of the Dayton Daily News, after allegations that 27 different writers had helped generate his reviews." Mr. Matlock gave Intellectual Morons five stars on Amazon, but his review leaves little evidence of actually having read my book.
Leave it to me to go after someone giving me a five-star review. It's not just that I've benefitted from Mr. Matlock's generous review. I've benefitted from the online culture that gave rise to it. My sales figures, from what I can gather, tend to swing disproportionately to Amazon vis-a-vis the competitors, i.e., Barnes & Noble and Borders. Certainly Amazon reviewers have been more generous than reviewers in mainline publications, who, when not ignoring my books entirely, generally can be counted on to trash them. There are worse things then a world where book reviews have become democratized. In the pre-Internet dark ages, the not-so-elite "elites" imposed political litmus tests on book reviews. It's not that they've stopped doing this. It's just that their power has been diminished. In extreme cases, a "nobody" on Amazon can have as much influence on book sales than an approved "somebody" at, say, the New York Review of Books. This is, as the phenomenon of drive-by Amazon reviews demonstrates, sometimes a bad thing.
Why would anyone post reviews of books they haven't read? Part of it seems to be the freebies, which, as the Slate piece points out, goes beyond books into electronics, movies, and other items hawked on Amazon. Publicists are willing to exchange free products for free publicity. A second, more psychologically interesting motivation involves narcissism. With tens of thousands of reviewers, there is, apparently, an ego boost by being recognized as a "Top 1000" reviewer. Some of these people, no doubt, just like books and wish to share their opinions. But many, many others like something else--cyberfame--and are willing to pass off hastily composed reactions to titles or promotional copy as book reviews.
My perspective is not only as an author, but as a book reviewer. I get review copies of books, but my intent is always to review them. There is no quid pro quo. The publisher doesn't give the product on the condition of a positive review. But there is an understanding that you will, at the least, read the book and make an effort to review it. I have received four review copies since finishing my own book, and I'm on the fourth one now. I've reviewed one. I'm currently writing a review for the second. I will likely take a pass on the third (and promote it some other way). And I'll review the fourth in March. I set, as a sort of New Year's resolution, what I thought to be a lofty goal: twelve published book reviews by year's end. For the "top" reviewers on Amazon, that's all in a day's work.
What disturbs most about the Amazon review-mania is the shift in focus from book to reviewer. In normal instances, the subject matter is the book. It's flaws, it's strengths, it's revealing facts, it's revealing errors get exposed for potential readers to see. Even if the review's reader doesn't opt to read the book reviewed, he generally learns something from merely reading the review. With the would-be cyber-celebs on Amazon, the book is secondary. Instead, the focus is themselves. Reviewers post drive-by reviews, ocassionally based on as little as Amazon's book description or the other featured reviews, for the purpose of boosting statistics: "Look at me. I've reviewed 3,500 books."
Were they rock stars they would stuff their trousers with socks. Were they book reviewers they would read the books before reviewing them.
"I am not a rock star but I still stuff my trousers with socks"-asdf
Actually, I have an armadillo in my trousers. It's quite frightening, really.
