Reviewing the reviews at Amazon....

[conuly]

Long time since I've done one of these. For those who are new around here, I choose the negative reviews because they're funnier, that's all.

The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle

This historical mystery novel about a teenage girl travelling from England to America by sailing ship won a Newberry award and was well reviewed, so I had hoped for a work of quality liturature. I found the characterisations flat, the twists of the plot unbelivable, and the violence excessive and gratuitous. Worst of all, the book promotes a Marxist/radical-feminist agenda all the way to its surprise ending. The one positive thing I can say about it is that it gives a better description of how a sailing ship works than any other historical novel I know of. However, I would not recommend it to anyone.

Excessive and gratuitious violence? Well, gee. I kinda thought that was the point of the violence in this book, that it was excessive and gratuitious. That's why everyone hates the captain, right?

As for Marxist agendas, I honestly have no idea wtf this person was smoking. The only thing that comes close is Charlotte's implied condemnation of her father's idea that criticizing your "betters" when they're wrong is inherantly a bad thing. Radical-feminist, now, I can get behind that one. Sorta. Maybe. Okay, not really. I'm not sure "girl runs away to sea like countless boys have" is radical enough to be radical-feminist. Maybe that's just me, though.

Of course, I strongly suspect that that reviewer is a bit fundementalist...

I bought this book thinking that it would be a good adventure book. It was. However, the book is about how the main character Charlotte Doyle grows up, but when her maturity is tested she fails. Charlotte learns to treat everyone as equals, but when her family will not allow her to do that she runs away. The author never implies that this is not the best way for Charlotte to solve her problems.

No, the author doesn't condescend enough to imply that this isn't the best way for Charlotte to solve her problems. It's a first-person narrative, and it ends when she steps on the ship again, what do you want?

Besides, sometimes, running away is the best way to solve your problems. When your problem is that your family is locking you up in a room, and not letting you talk to anybody, it seems downright reasonable to run away. What was she supposed to do here?

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

I didn¡¯t like this book much because the story was boring and I don¡¯t like fantasy story. ¡°Fantasy¡± it is just made up by author¡¯s thinking and it doesn¡¯t give me any interest. It can¡¯t be happening in real world and also it is not even true story, I mean that¡¯s why people call ¡°fantasy¡± but it is just author¡¯s imagination. I can¡¯t agree with story because I¡¯ve never done before and I know that is not a true.
This book helped my English study but still I don¡¯t like story. I heard that this book (the lion the witch and the wardrobe) is the first original fantasy series in the world. I feel sorry for C.S Lewis (author) but I don¡¯t like this book. This book is not for my age and not my type. This book will appropriate to under 12 years of age. Actually I don¡¯t have any idea but one idea came out of my head, which is ¡°I think, I don¡¯t like this book¡±.,

No, I don't know what's up with the text, that's copied verbatim.

Here's a hint: If you don't like fantasy, you're not qualified to review fantasy books. I don't like romance, do I? And therefore you don't see me going to whine about romance novels! That's stupid! Also, have you ever noticed that when people on amazon don't like a book, they say "It's only appropriate for people younger than me"? How insulting and small-minded.

Okay, I rarely say this about a book, but this book was so boring, I couldn't even finish it! I could not relate to it what- so- ever. If you want an interesting series with adventure and a magical twist with some creativity, read the Harry Potter series.

Oh yes. Harry Potter books are absolutely creative, and not derivative at all. And they need to be advertised.

HP6

I can't bear her continuing fascination with murdering her main characters. I've tried to rationalize whether these killings are integral to the plot or are merely gratuitous. I lean towards the latter. Rowling should be venting to her therapist and not torturing Harry any longer. ... So now that she's killed off Sirius Black and Albus Dumbledore, who will she murder in the final book?

OMG! She killed off two characters! I'm not sure that's enough to classify as a "cry for help". If she'd killed real people, sure, but... two characters in a book? Sheesh, I've read series that were veritable bloodbaths compared to Harry Potter, and nobody complained.

In every one of her books, JK beats up on Harry. The Half Blood Prince is no exception and the worst such example. I don't know if JK gets some sadistic pleasure in hurting Harry or if she thinks this is the way to sell her books. Fact, you are rich now JK. Give Harry a break.
There is enough hurt in the real world without your dumping on a young man in the wizard world.

Hm. He's right. Book seven should totally be "Harry Potter and the Happy Birthday!"

Harry can invite everyone in the wizarding world (including the death eaters!) to his party. Hijinks will ensue. It'll be funny. And at the end, he and Voldy will realize that they're not so different, and they'll become bestest fwends! Aw. Can't you just feel the love?

Newsflash: Happy people do not make compelling characters. If Harry doesn't suffer, then there's no story. At all.

As a mother, I wanted to read this book before handing it over to my 9 year old (who has read the first 5, as well as myself). I can honestly say that she won't be allowed to read it any time soon. I will tell her basically what happens and who the Half-Blood Prince is and such to save her the agony of longing to know what happens next, but it is too dark for her to read at this tender age. It is VERY dark (more so than #4 and #5), and also talks about teenage urges that I'd rather not have my 9 year old worrying about just yet. The werewolf stuff is really savage, as well as the Inferie (sp?). The betrayal and then death is also very devastating. I just don't think that 9 - 12 year olds should go through that emotional roller coaster, and be exposed to such darkness in Harry Potter's world at this point. This book would be OK for about ages 15 and up.

It's about a 16 year old kid. 'bout time he grew up a little. As for "teenage urges", I'm not sure kissing counts. Sex, sure, but...

That said, I agree, the average nine year old probably shouldn't be reading a series about teenagers living in a violent, racist world. But what sort of parent thinks otherwise? You don't even need to read the books to know that maybe it's a little dark.

My daughter has enjoyed reading the HP books for the past year. She'll be 9 this winter. After seeing that the publisher recommends the book for kids aged 8+ (9-12 at Amazon), I purchased the Half-Blood Prince for her. She dilligently read the book all weekend, with her children's dictionary nearby to look up words that she did not know. Last night, she came into my room and said that there was a word she couldn't find in her dictionary. I assumed that she was going to show me either a British word or one of J.K. Rowling's "magical" terms. My jaw dropped when I saw what the word actually was (Morfin's rather crude characterization of Voldemort's mother). I know that I will have to discuss the meaning of mature slang with my daughter at some point; however, it will not be at 8 years old, and certainly not as a result of a so-called children's book. Really, what were they thinking? I can understand that characters are growing up, but if the author is going to adapt her work to more mature themes and tones, the books should be marketed for adolescents. In reading through the rest of the book, I also felt that the "heavy" nature of the final scenes was a bit much for 8 and 9 year olds. A word to parents: if you're purchasing this for a young child, you might want to read it yourself first. Some parents may want to hold off on having their kids read it until they're older. Really, I've never been more disappointed in a publisher's marketing judgment, and I feel like Ms. Rowling's editors should've caught these issues if 8 and 9 year olds are her intended audience.

Ditto to what I said before. If you've been following the series at all, you should've known in advance that this isn't a book for little kids if you don't want your kids reading... well, dark material. Don't blame Rowling, blame yourself.

The sixth book I pre ordered. Actually my friend preordered it for me, saving me ten dollars. Whoohoo. I went to the party to laugh at the harry potter freaks, met some great people, got some free stuff, it was really FUN. The fact a book can bring all these sorts of people together, well, its great.
And then I read it.
the first SENTENCE is a blatant attack upon the written language. Its gramatical inadeqaucies filled me with dismay. On page 73 someone said they wanted a pay rise. Really? A pay rise? I thought the word was pay raise. The editor obviously did not pay any attention when editing this book, as Ive found more errors in it than all the others combined. Its pathetic.

(This comes after a complaint that she didn't like any of the series, at all)

Random question: I chalked "pay rise" up to a Briticism. Is it?

Edit: Come to think of it, you may want to see the entire review. I hate it when people act as though it's beneath their dignity to read "omg chidlerns books!!!111"

Bored now. *wanders off to play with the router a bit more, see if it's fixable*

Edit: Can you all see the entry where I beg you to help me with my tiny little problem?

Comments

[ex-chaos-by-699.livejournal.com]

It always bugs me when people seem to expect everything to be geared towards "the children", anyway. I mean sure, the HP books are children's books, but they're really also on the borderline of being Y/A books, which often do tend to deal with bigger issues.

I wonder, how much harm does it really do a kid to read "dark" books anyway? I thought about lots of "dark" stuff when I was a kid, and I think I turned out okay. The stuff that really harmed me was how I was treated by other people, not the books I read.

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

I'm not even sure the HP books were consciously "children's books" as much as they were books about children that happened to revolve around the way people thought at the age of whatever the main character's age was that year.

Rowling, at any rate, anticipated that a lot of her readers would be unhappy with the direction she took the books. I'm glad she took it that way anyway instead of trying to write to please the readers.

[morganne13.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the dark things that are considered "children's territory" anyways, like oh i don't know, FAIRY TALES?

Gah. Those people bug me too.

[conuly]

Ever read my review of the reviews of Zel? (A retelling of Rapunzel)

OMG! The mother shouldn't've been a witch! That's not Christian! (When the reasons she became a witch are expressed in detail, the problems she has because of it are explained, and the way she suffers isn't left to the imagination)

OMG! I can't believe that this book endorses premarital sex!!! (When the couple in question considered themselves married, and when, as a direct and immediate consequence of having sex, the girl gets thrown out (literally) of her home, has twins, and lives seven years very nearly by herself, as the boy is blinded and from then on considered insane)

On and on and on. Gah.

[l33tminion]

Some fundies seem to have a real problem grasping that stuff happening in fiction is not necessarily endorsed by the author. I've even seen some criticisms of Huxley based on the idea that Brave New World was his preferred blueprint for the future, or something like that.

[conuly]

I'm sure it's not only fundies. In fact, I know it's not. I saw one complaint that "Ender's Game" was cruel towards kids who had actually been forced into armies, nevermind that the BattleSchool is not once refered to as a good thing, and a lot of shit goes on there that we know is bad.

[l33tminion]

I agree, although I can kind of see the guy's point there. (After all, BattleSchool is in space, with the toy guns and the zero-G battle-room, and it is rather cool despite some bad stuff going on there. For real "child soldiers", things are considerably more unpleasant.)

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

My jaw dropped when I saw what the word actually was (Morfin's rather crude characterization of Voldemort's mother). I know that I will have to discuss the meaning of mature slang with my daughter at some point; however, it will not be at 8 years old, and certainly not as a result of a so-called children's book.

*re-reads salient passages again*

What the hell is she talking about? "Hankering after"? I'm not seeing the offensive adult slang she's talking about. Maybe I'm too corrupt to realize how wrong some words are?

[leora.livejournal.com]

Probably "slut".

I agree with part of the review - if the book was marketed for 8 year olds then that was stupid. I'd always heard that the intended age for the audience was the same as Harry's. So, this book is intended for 16 year olds. It's not surprising some people wouldn't consider it suitable for 9 year olds.

However, book 4 had crueler and more blatant racism and book 5 had outright torture, bloody torture. I don't think book 6 is darker than books 4 or 5. Yes, the deaths are necessary. Harry has to lose his support system to stand on his own - basic hero story.

And Hansel and Gretel and The Gingerbread Man are pretty disturbing too and they market them to much younger children. For that matter, rock-a-bye baby is pretty nasty. So is that one with four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie.

Kids aren't that sheltered and don't need to be. Protect them from real violence and give them love, they'll survive a few nasty fairy tales. I loved the Grimm's fairy tales as soon as I could read them for myself. There you have people cutting off pieces of their feet and birds pecking out people's eyes. Good stuff.

[conuly]

Sing a song of sixpence, pocket full of rye
Four-and-twenty blackbirds, baked in a pie
When the pie was opened, the birds began to sing
Wasn't that a dainty dish to set before a king?

The king was in his counting house, counting all his money
The queen was in the parlor, eating bread and honey
The maid was in the garden, hanging up the clothes
When down came a blackbird and snipped off her nose!

*steals thy nose*

I got your nose! NYAH!

Ahem. Sorry. So, anyway, as I was about to say, it's been my experience that kids generally love those sorts of stories, and Jim (who ran away from nurse and got eaten by a lion), and other gruesome tales. They appeal to them. God knows why.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I didn't... don't know why. Never liked violent nursery rhymes or The Gingerbread Man. But I liked gruesome fairy tales. And when I was 10, I went through my Holocaust phase, reading everything I could get my hands on on the matter. And that was far worse, because I knew even if the individual stories were fiction, the basics behind them were real and generally even worse. And then at ... I dunno, about 12 I had my dystopia phase and read 1984, Animal Farm, and Brave New World. 1984 and Animal Farm are far worse than anything in Harry Potter. And Brave New World has sex between little kids... maybe about 5 or 6 years old.

I'm glad I'm a beta. Alphas work so hard. And gammas are just so dumb. I'm lucky to be a beta.

[conuly]

So the general principle applies. You still liked gruesome tales.

And stop with the scary quotes, please. *runs and hides*

[marveen.livejournal.com]

A gramme instead of a damn.

I read BNW when I was about fourteen, too. Along with Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. (Is it just the age, or the fact that a lot of children's libraries are divided up by 14-and-up and 13-and-under?)

[ex-chaos-by-699.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I'm a beta. Alphas work so hard. And gammas are just so dumb. I'm lucky to be a beta.

Oh man, that *so* needs to be made into an icon.

I *heart* Brave New World.

[leora.livejournal.com]

If anyone wants to, they should check the exact quote. That's just based on memory, and it's been about 15 years. I remember the basic idea, but I doubt I got it verbatim.

[rho]

Random question: I chalked "pay rise" up to a Briticism. Is it?

Yup, it's fine in British English.

[conuly]

So, she's just a twit, right? One who rather amusingly can't spell.

I mean, in general, I agree, JKR needs an editor, and there's a lot of messed up punctuation, but... that's not part of the problem, here.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

I didn't even know it was pay raise in 'merkin. Just sounds odd to me.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

General usage: bread dough rises, your pay gets raised. Or you get "a raise in pay".

Speaking of which, I got a raise just this month--a whole quarter more per hour! Woot! (Of course, then my hours got cut to make up for it, but them's the breaks.)

[eofs.livejournal.com]

Heh, the boss giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other.

I got a pay rise too recently. Previously I'd been earning a basic wage + holiday money (ie I got a couple of quid more a day instead of taking leave.) When I renewed my contract, they kept me at that combined rate, but now I get leave.

Of course, since I don't get *paid* leave, this actually means over a 10 day period I get 9 days of pay, rather than 10 days of pay. So I earn less.

Sneaky huh ;0)

[dimethirwen.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* I love it when you do these. I often find it fun to go to Amazon, look at books that I love, and then scanning the negative reviews for jewels like these.

[deceptica]

Also, have you ever noticed that when people on amazon don't like a book, they say "It's only appropriate for people younger than me"? How insulting and small-minded.

What's worse is that I've also seen this in professional film reviews in newspapers. Imagine reading the review for a film you found hilariously funny and seeing it end with something like "if you're under six you might get a laugh out of it, otherwise forget it". Way to insult your readers!

[ex-chaos-by-699.livejournal.com]

It always bugs me when people seem to expect everything to be geared towards "the children", anyway. I mean sure, the HP books are children's books, but they're really also on the borderline of being Y/A books, which often do tend to deal with bigger issues.

I wonder, how much harm does it really do a kid to read "dark" books anyway? I thought about lots of "dark" stuff when I was a kid, and I think I turned out okay. The stuff that really harmed me was how I was treated by other people, not the books I read.

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

I'm not even sure the HP books were consciously "children's books" as much as they were books about children that happened to revolve around the way people thought at the age of whatever the main character's age was that year.

Rowling, at any rate, anticipated that a lot of her readers would be unhappy with the direction she took the books. I'm glad she took it that way anyway instead of trying to write to please the readers.

[morganne13.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the dark things that are considered "children's territory" anyways, like oh i don't know, FAIRY TALES?

Gah. Those people bug me too.

[conuly]

Ever read my review of the reviews of Zel? (A retelling of Rapunzel)

OMG! The mother shouldn't've been a witch! That's not Christian! (When the reasons she became a witch are expressed in detail, the problems she has because of it are explained, and the way she suffers isn't left to the imagination)

OMG! I can't believe that this book endorses premarital sex!!! (When the couple in question considered themselves married, and when, as a direct and immediate consequence of having sex, the girl gets thrown out (literally) of her home, has twins, and lives seven years very nearly by herself, as the boy is blinded and from then on considered insane)

On and on and on. Gah.

[l33tminion]

Some fundies seem to have a real problem grasping that stuff happening in fiction is not necessarily endorsed by the author. I've even seen some criticisms of Huxley based on the idea that Brave New World was his preferred blueprint for the future, or something like that.

[conuly]

I'm sure it's not only fundies. In fact, I know it's not. I saw one complaint that "Ender's Game" was cruel towards kids who had actually been forced into armies, nevermind that the BattleSchool is not once refered to as a good thing, and a lot of shit goes on there that we know is bad.

[l33tminion]

I agree, although I can kind of see the guy's point there. (After all, BattleSchool is in space, with the toy guns and the zero-G battle-room, and it is rather cool despite some bad stuff going on there. For real "child soldiers", things are considerably more unpleasant.)

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

My jaw dropped when I saw what the word actually was (Morfin's rather crude characterization of Voldemort's mother). I know that I will have to discuss the meaning of mature slang with my daughter at some point; however, it will not be at 8 years old, and certainly not as a result of a so-called children's book.

*re-reads salient passages again*

What the hell is she talking about? "Hankering after"? I'm not seeing the offensive adult slang she's talking about. Maybe I'm too corrupt to realize how wrong some words are?

[leora.livejournal.com]

Probably "slut".

I agree with part of the review - if the book was marketed for 8 year olds then that was stupid. I'd always heard that the intended age for the audience was the same as Harry's. So, this book is intended for 16 year olds. It's not surprising some people wouldn't consider it suitable for 9 year olds.

However, book 4 had crueler and more blatant racism and book 5 had outright torture, bloody torture. I don't think book 6 is darker than books 4 or 5. Yes, the deaths are necessary. Harry has to lose his support system to stand on his own - basic hero story.

And Hansel and Gretel and The Gingerbread Man are pretty disturbing too and they market them to much younger children. For that matter, rock-a-bye baby is pretty nasty. So is that one with four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie.

Kids aren't that sheltered and don't need to be. Protect them from real violence and give them love, they'll survive a few nasty fairy tales. I loved the Grimm's fairy tales as soon as I could read them for myself. There you have people cutting off pieces of their feet and birds pecking out people's eyes. Good stuff.

[conuly]

Sing a song of sixpence, pocket full of rye
Four-and-twenty blackbirds, baked in a pie
When the pie was opened, the birds began to sing
Wasn't that a dainty dish to set before a king?

The king was in his counting house, counting all his money
The queen was in the parlor, eating bread and honey
The maid was in the garden, hanging up the clothes
When down came a blackbird and snipped off her nose!

*steals thy nose*

I got your nose! NYAH!

Ahem. Sorry. So, anyway, as I was about to say, it's been my experience that kids generally love those sorts of stories, and Jim (who ran away from nurse and got eaten by a lion), and other gruesome tales. They appeal to them. God knows why.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I didn't... don't know why. Never liked violent nursery rhymes or The Gingerbread Man. But I liked gruesome fairy tales. And when I was 10, I went through my Holocaust phase, reading everything I could get my hands on on the matter. And that was far worse, because I knew even if the individual stories were fiction, the basics behind them were real and generally even worse. And then at ... I dunno, about 12 I had my dystopia phase and read 1984, Animal Farm, and Brave New World. 1984 and Animal Farm are far worse than anything in Harry Potter. And Brave New World has sex between little kids... maybe about 5 or 6 years old.

I'm glad I'm a beta. Alphas work so hard. And gammas are just so dumb. I'm lucky to be a beta.

[conuly]

So the general principle applies. You still liked gruesome tales.

And stop with the scary quotes, please. *runs and hides*

[marveen.livejournal.com]

A gramme instead of a damn.

I read BNW when I was about fourteen, too. Along with Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. (Is it just the age, or the fact that a lot of children's libraries are divided up by 14-and-up and 13-and-under?)

[ex-chaos-by-699.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I'm a beta. Alphas work so hard. And gammas are just so dumb. I'm lucky to be a beta.

Oh man, that *so* needs to be made into an icon.

I *heart* Brave New World.

[leora.livejournal.com]

If anyone wants to, they should check the exact quote. That's just based on memory, and it's been about 15 years. I remember the basic idea, but I doubt I got it verbatim.

[rho]

Random question: I chalked "pay rise" up to a Briticism. Is it?

Yup, it's fine in British English.

[conuly]

So, she's just a twit, right? One who rather amusingly can't spell.

I mean, in general, I agree, JKR needs an editor, and there's a lot of messed up punctuation, but... that's not part of the problem, here.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

I didn't even know it was pay raise in 'merkin. Just sounds odd to me.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

General usage: bread dough rises, your pay gets raised. Or you get "a raise in pay".

Speaking of which, I got a raise just this month--a whole quarter more per hour! Woot! (Of course, then my hours got cut to make up for it, but them's the breaks.)

[eofs.livejournal.com]

Heh, the boss giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other.

I got a pay rise too recently. Previously I'd been earning a basic wage + holiday money (ie I got a couple of quid more a day instead of taking leave.) When I renewed my contract, they kept me at that combined rate, but now I get leave.

Of course, since I don't get *paid* leave, this actually means over a 10 day period I get 9 days of pay, rather than 10 days of pay. So I earn less.

Sneaky huh ;0)

[dimethirwen.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* I love it when you do these. I often find it fun to go to Amazon, look at books that I love, and then scanning the negative reviews for jewels like these.

[deceptica]

Also, have you ever noticed that when people on amazon don't like a book, they say "It's only appropriate for people younger than me"? How insulting and small-minded.

What's worse is that I've also seen this in professional film reviews in newspapers. Imagine reading the review for a film you found hilariously funny and seeing it end with something like "if you're under six you might get a laugh out of it, otherwise forget it". Way to insult your readers!