Amazon reviewers

Rich Burridge blogs about some bogus reviews at Amazon. The post captures my attention as I'm an Amazon reviewer for over five years. I have always supposed Harriet Klausner, the #1 reviewer who claims to be an acquisition librarian in Pennsylvania, must have a load before the site comes along (around 1995) and just feeds it all at once to the system. How could a human being holding a full-time job produce 16 reviews every week like Harriet Klausner does? That I am able to finish 3 reads like Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling, The Master and Margarita, and Shroud. I claim to be a prolific reader. But 16 books a month? Let's do the math: in order to read 16 books and to review them, a reviewer has to read at least one book a day in order to maintain that reviewing rhythm. The books could be some fluffs or bogus romances that require no critical reading and thinking.

I question the thoroughness, the nuances, and quality of reviews if reviewers simply knock the books out at this outrageous speed. This simply defies the meaning of reviewing at the first place. Reflections and thoughts, which I scribble in my Moleskine notebook for every read, are conducive to a judicious review. Many reviewers shift to review a pack of gums, condoms, chocolate and other quick consumer items just to improve their ranking, admittedly an inventive for reviewing at the first place. The ranking has a strong tie to status, and identity to the products reviewers review. Nature of Amazon reviewing climate has changed, and unfortunately, so does the authority and quality of some of the reviews. Highly regarded books within literary circle are stigmatized by reviewers who don't even understand the meaning. I rarely pay attention to reviews on Amazon now other than the spotlight ones. I slowly shift the reviews over to my blog, with minor modification to the wording since Amazon claims intellectual property of all submitted reviews.