Friday, Aug 29, 2008
Are bad reviews part of the anti-Horowitz conspiracy? Plus: Woe is Microsoft; bodybuilders are a stereotype of masculinity.
May 3, 2000 | Where cowards have no names
BY DAVID HOROWITZ
(05/01/00)
Let me see if I can follow David Horowitz's argument. His books have been received largely negative reviews for the past 35 years, not just from major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and from stodgy book-trade organs like Kirkus Reviews and Library Journal, but also from ordinary readers posting their thoughts on forums such as Amazon.com.
There is only one possible explanation for this. A cabal of Stalinists has taken over the corporate print media and the dot-com publishing industry, and has additionally populated the streets with clandestine troops ("it is their mission") who disguise themselves as "consumers" and "readers" in order to mischaracterize Horowitz as a wooden-prosed ideological hack.
You had better guard your water supply, Mr. Horowitz. Who knows where they will strike next?
-- Doug Saunders
I'm the "individual in charge of reviews" at Amazon.com that David Horowitz mentions. (Or was, rather, but that's another story.) I thought it might be helpful to share what I told him about the reviewing process back then.
First, I was not the editor who assigned the negative review of "Radical Son" that upset Horowitz. That was before my time. I did, however, assign the reviews for his following two books, "The Politics of Bad Faith" and "Hating Whitey." The former was reviewed by John J. Miller, one of Amazon.com's best regular freelance contributors and a staff writer at the National Review, while the latter was reviewed by John Anderson. Both of them basically explained the subject matter of the particular book, and told why you might like it. While Anderson disagreed with "Hating Whitey" on ideological grounds, his review simply pointed out that other conservative writers had made Horowitz's argument better in earlier books.
My general policy when I was the nonfiction editor at Amazon.com was, after picking out the books I wanted to write about, to assign books to reviewers who were experts in the field and/or ideologically sympathetic to the book's point of view. And unless a book was irredeemably bad, if we couldn't say anything nice, we usually relied upon value-neutral descriptions which ended in, "This is a book that might appeal to ..." or some such.
The reason for this is simple: Amazon.com exists in large part to sell things. You don't sell things by identifying them as inferior -- or possibly identifying the deeply held opinions of your customers as inferior. If the political books that regularly appear on Amazon.com's bestseller lists are any indication, conservatives (and libertarians) make up a substantial segment of the Amazon.com customer base. So, when I was there, I made sure that those customers were kept informed about the books that would be of interest to them.
-- Ron Hogan
Reader Review of David Horowitz's Column on May 1 in Salon.com
1 out of 5 stars
In reading David Horowitz's column, I have a few questions:
1. Where does he get the hubris to assume that he deserves to be compared to such established giants as [Noam] Chomsky and Cornel West? I consider myself an avid reader of political literature, and consider myself familiar with both liberal and conservative authors. I have never heard of David Horowitz or any of his books. I am a writer and a filmmaker, and I may not like it if someone criticizes a film of mine. But I don't criticize their argument by complaining that they are unwilling to put me in the same category as Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock.
2. How can Horowitz complain that his reviews are negative? Talk about sour grapes. Isn't it a bit unfair to assume that all the book's negative reviews are because people hate the politics, and not because they didn't agree with your book?
3. Is a weekly column in a newsmagazine really the proper forum for these kind of rantings anyway? This kind of crybaby whining belongs either in an op-ed section or the trash can.
4. Why is he complaining about the reader reviews for his book, "The Politics of Bad Faith," when the average review is four stars? Yes, there are two reviews on the site that are scathing, unfair and poorly written. But there are also two well-written, effusive reviews that deal with intellectual issues. Horowitz is like the kid in high school who is upset that he got an A minus on his math test rather than a straight A.
5. Horowitz talks about the faceless paranoid cowards who don't list their name or e-mail address online. I was going to e-mail this letter straight to Horowitz, in hope of starting a dialogue, but it turns out that his e-mail address isn't posted either! I see no reason why he couldn't have a simple business address (as opposed to giving out his home address) listed with his column. Or if he doesn't want to do that, he should stop complaining that everyone in the world didn't like his book.
-- Matthew Buchholz
Brooklyn, N.Y.
How interesting to read David Horowitz's latest column. He might be interested to know that I recently reviewed, for Amazon.com, Barbara Olson's latest book, which certainly qualifies as conservative screed. Not only did I sign my name, but I allowed Amazon to print my e-mail address as well. I quickly learned why it's not a good idea for liberals to out themselves, and it has nothing to do with cowardice. I was OK with the names ("socialist cunt" was a personal favorite), but when I started getting veiled threats from e-mail addresses that could not be traced, I decided that it's not safe to reveal one's identity if one shares a liberal opinion. The conservatives who responded to my review were more than just plain wrong -- they were and are a culture of unbridled haters who cannot stand dissent. And there are a lot of them, I assure you.
David Horowitz should get off his high horse -- the view from here tells a very different story.
-- Alice Lieberman
Rarely do I find myself in agreement with David Horowitz since we are political polar opposites. However, I must agree with one aspect of his article on Amazon.com: No one should be allowed to anonymously smear an author. This is an utterly revolting practice and, again here I go agreeing with Horowitz, a very real attempt to suppress and punish the publication of views that the "flamers" simply don't like or agree with.
-- Denise Tyrrell
Get Salon in your mailbox!