This review is the ONLY critical review of the 1940 Newberry Winner Daniel Boone.

The review points out that the book has a lot of very racist commentary (and gives an example) and that it's not fair to call it a biography when there's no proof of any of this information - it could've been made up whole cloth for all we know.

I suspect that the review has been rated down so often (18 helpfuls out of 44 votes!) because... well, let's just look at another review:

The one star review this book received was unfair. The malicious reviewer revealed more about his own prejudices and the modern shame of unbridled political correctness than he did about the work in question.

Or for that matter, let's look at the review-of-the-review:

We have to have a review and bring in racism? The early settlers of Ky (I'm descended from some) didn't have the luxury of political correctness. It was a hard, dreary life and a chore just to survive. Indian raiding parties killed men, women and children. The Indians weren't just sheep waiting to be slaughtered. It was a clash of cultures and races. The Indians lost and nothing can change that.

(I'm not really sure saying "Let's not brutally describe an attack of women and children in a kid's book and call the victims 'sullen' for not begging their attackers for mercy" is being PC. For that matter, the early settlers could've avoided much of the hard, dreary, chore-to-survive life by staying in areas already owned by white people instead of moving in to areas that were already settled - by Native Americans. I'm just sayin'.)

I agree that the book was probably a product of its times (I haven't read it, though I'm assuming the quoted portions are accurate), but that doesn't mean that we have to read it now if we don't want to. Not every Newberry winner is, y'know, a winner. (I just read Ginger Pye the other day. Unusual in that not only does the dog NOT die, it comes back after being stolen. Boringest book I've read in a while, though.)

So, there aren't many reviews on this book. I don't want you to spam this review with thumbs up votes, but go read it, and vote it as helpful if you think that it is, in fact, a helpful review.

Tags: amazon, books, racism
I'm feeling: annoyed

In the wake of Amazonfail there were a few mentions of other problems with Amazon. They've largely been ignored, but I thought enough about it to go straight to Google, which lead me straight to Wikipedia. (Honestly, sometimes I don't know why I even *bother* with Google!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#Controversies

Some of this I've seen elsewhere, like in the Times, where I can only hope they did basic fact-checking. The tax thing, definitely, and the thing about self-publishing, I knew that. But unions? Bullying publishers? Some of these things aren't easily explained away as a "glitch", nor as easily fixed.

So other than do a lot of research (does anybody else get the doing-things bug when they're PMSy, or is that just me?), I don't know what I'm going to do, ultimately.

If nothing else, I'm expanding my online shopping (when I shop online) to other retailers. I always *say* we should support small businesses, but I too often, I think, take the convenient and easy route.

Tags: amazon, thoughts
I'm feeling: pensive

On Amazonfail and social media. Lots of interesting links at the bottom, too.

This one, for example, is fascinating. I knew Russian LJ was different, but I had no idea how pervasive it was in Russia!

Powell's is considering a GLBT sale, because they know an opportunity when they see one.

Tags: amazon, links

Thanks, Mommy!

A deranked author's commentary (reprinted) on the whole thing - apparently she's been complaining to Amazon about this for months, which makes her at least the third person I've read who's dealt with this longer than the rest of us have known about it

Salon's take on it
Salon's take on it - link 2

And a second post by markprobst.

Tags: amazon, links
I'm feeling: bitchy

Amazon sales rankings are often used as conditions in author contracts and my independent bookstores to help make purchasing decisions.

If it is, I suppose it makes a sad kind of sense, but shouldn't there be some sort of independent company to work out how likely a book is to sell? This strikes me as a stunningly bad idea for reasons quite beyond the current drama.

Also? A post on metadata and the whole... fail.

Also ALSO? Look at this. Don't mess with teh internetz. CLEARLY.

Tags: amazon, books, links, thoughts
I'm feeling: shocked

Which makes sense. It certainly would explain why more well-known works (Heather Has Two Mommies) ended up with their sales ranks deleted while less well-known works on the same subject didn't.

IF this is the way it went down it doesn't totally absolve Amazon of guilt. I'm still working this out in my head as to how I feel about the whole concept, anyway.

Edit: Pointless fannishness, but Tamora Pierce is talking about it as well.

Tags: amazon, books
I'm feeling: doubtful

I go to take a little nap and I wake up to AMAZON IS MORE EVIL THAN EVER. What? Seems everything's just... exploded.

Why does it matter if sales ranks are visible? I get that keeping sales ranks on some books while deleting them from others on dubious grounds is uncool, but why does it matter? What do they do, exactly? How does that keep books from being searched up? What're the odds that they'll make a hasty public apology within the next week and hope everything blows over?

Edit: It's now hit the LA Times.

Tags: amazon, links
I'm feeling: WTF?