Hey Amazon, don't ban criticism

“How a human being could have attempted such a book as the present without committing suicide before he had finished a dozen chapters, is a mystery,” wrote Graham’s Lady Magazine in 1848.

The “human being” in question was Emily Bronte, and the book was “Wuthering Heights.” The book is included in almost every high school introduction to British literature.

Its hallowed place on the metaphoric canonical shelf is a testament to the novel’s enduring presence, and countless articles of literary criticism have been written about it.

Surprisingly, Brontë’s success was not hindered by one or two negative reviews urging her to commit suicide. The same rings true for many highly-acclaimed but poorly-reviewed novels, such as Joseph Heller’s “Catch-22” and Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita.”

But authors today are taking a stand against bad reviews. Yes, a surprisingly large group of self-published writers — led by vampire-enthusiast Anne Rice — have started a petition to ban the option for anonymous book reviews on Amazon.com.

Anonymous reviewers on Amazon, Rice argues, are simply “bullies,” hell-bent on ruining self-started or popular writers one review at a time. She maintains that such negative reviews spell the death-knell for self-publishers and can “hurt the feelings” of more established authors, presumably those like herself.

However, Rice and her followers fail to acknowledge two important things. First, most of us are able to differentiate between hateful and helpful comments. Second, book reviews were never meant to be friendly or congratulatory for mere effort.

They are, in all intents and forms, reviews.

Let’s be honest. Most rational members of society are able to tell that there is a qualitative difference between the comment, “This book was a less-than-stellar read because the prose was meandering, the plot boring and the end unsatisfying. Also, it seemed derived,” and one that reads, “This book is so freaking dumb. Awful. Kill yourself. Lol.”

Obviously, the first was submitted by someone with the intent of helpfulness and the second by a preteen. By assuming we, as consumers, cannot tell the difference between these two reviews, Rice has reduced us all into driveling idiots, unable to usefully assess any bit of the information that is presented to us.

Also, it seems that Rice and her supporters have truly forgotten the whole essential point behind a review. Reviews are important because they help us separate what is worth consuming from what is not, whether it be literature, films or albums. Or that one cool-looking cast-iron kettle on the Internet that you totally
want, but you’re not yet sure is worth the high price.

How reviews shouldn’t function, in any sense, is as a simple laudatory message for writers just for arranging words in a way that happens to form some sort of narrative. While “good” and “bad” is truly subjective, I think we can all agree that “Twilight” is no “Dracula.”

With that being said, I do think that Rice’s petition comes from good intentions. It could improve by targeting simply unhelpful anonymous reviews, rather than only bad ones.

“This book was really cool” is just as uninsightful as its negative counterpart, and
produces an equal amount of dead weight. By eliminating these sorts of non-reviews, Amazon could emphasize user input that carefully and thoughtfully engages with the texts at hand.

Hiring moderators to regularly check out such reviews could be a step in the right direction.

Though it is regrettable that a specific set of authors is especially feeling the pain from negative Internet reviews, perhaps they should grow a thicker skin to more effectively deal with criticism.

mcaranna@indiana.edu