It may be pointless, even unwise, but I feel like I have to respond to a review of the book that was posted to Amazon, because the review is beyond egregious. So far seven people have attested to finding the review "helpful," troubling proof that the vindictive review might successfully dissuade potential readers (the apparent goal).
The text of the "review" in question will appear in yellow, my commentary in white.
Let's begin with the outrageous title of the review:
No journalistic standards, biased narrative, and zero transparency about both.
These are significant accusations, and complete and utter horseshit. What journalistic standards? What bias? Guess what: this review will never tell you.
Unfortunately, I'm gonna be That Reviewer.
You seem so reluctant.
This being something like the third Cheap Trick book with the same problem.
What problem, that you didn't write them?
...it needs to be made entirely clear that this book is in no way authoritative or complete and may include any amount of totally incorrect information.
Right away, That Reviewer is making baseless assertions. Entirely clear, huh? Hilarious, because as we go through this review, we will find that they make nothing entirely clear. The review is entirely vague. Mind you, no one would claim that the book is authoritative or complete, neither the author nor the publisher, yet one might ask, what makes That Reviewer the authority? As for "incorrect information," this is the first in a series of unsubstantiated insinuations made by That Reviewer. How about some examples? Try pointing out a single example of incorrect information. Maybe even try correcting it. Anyone can insinuate anything. That's meaningless. Try backing it up.
Loving the band does not mean having to love any book about them.
Hating the book does not mean having to write a disingenuous review.
The problem is simple. The book’s credibility is impossible to determine...
Meaningless nonsense. Everything in the book is sourced: interviews, documents, articles, etc. But again, present some examples, from the book, where the information is deemed less than credible, and explain on what basis you question its credibility. Anyone can insinuate. If your veiled accusations are based on NOTHING, then what's your agenda? You seem to have one.
...as it’s essentially piles of non-integrated quotes from new interviews combined with old, out-of-context interview content stitching in between.
These are lies. Read the book. The quotes are well-integrated and in context. This level of distortion is highly suspect. The assertion is so off-base, it almost has to be malicious.
It’s not a writerly narration that sheds light on what happened and highlights themes...
Wow, that's a sweeping indictment. Most readers seem to disagree, including someone like Ira Robbins, whose opinion I value and respect infintely more than That Reviewer's. Author Ken Sharp has also effusively praised the book. The book has garnered positive reviews from major publications like Goldmine, Record Collector and Classic Rock. Hmm. Why do so many authoritative sources seem to disagree with That Reviewer's hit piece?
It’s not an oral history either...
It is in part an oral history, but I chose to present the book as a mixture of oral history and prose. (Have you read From The Velvets to the Voidoids?) So no, it is not a firm oral history. But this is just another pointless observation from That Reviewer, veiled as a criticism.
It’s rickety pastiche with far too many gaping holes...
Ouch. Is That Reviewer a saboteur? I don't know them, they don't know me, but they sure seem to be holding a grudge. Again, how about some examples of those gaping holes? If they are so numerous and gaping, they must be easy to highlight. Or maybe this is another completely unsubstantiated attack.
How were interviewees selected?
What a useless, vapid question. Selected? That Reviewer really doesn't understand how research works? Obviously I made an effort, over years, to interview as many people as possible, who were involved in the story or bore witness to any part of it, and who were willing to talk to me. Guess what: I interviewed numerous people who are not even quoted in the book. Because that's the process. Gather the information and sort through it. You're telling me That Reviewer isn't familiar with this dynamic? Is That Reviewer betraying an ignorance to the process, or simply grasping for another way to undermine the book with a vague, toothless challenge? Maybe they are insinuating (again) that some of the interviewees should not have been selected. Who? Why? Tellingly, That Reviewer fails, every single time, to be specific.
How was the quality of their input determined?
Somehow this laughable series of rhetorical questions, dumb as they are, still manages to come off as obnoxiously condescending. Uh, the quality of their input was determined by me? The author? That Reviewer really needed to ask? If That Reviewer intends to challenge my qualifications, back it up. Start with pointing out some of the input that I incorporated that was not of quality. Again, it's really easy to just insinuate, minus specifics. There is simply no substance to this review. It's pedantic and disrespectful, but certainly not informative.
Were there efforts to get corroboration?
The answer is obvious: of course. What a ridiculous question. Really, any book like this could be challenged in such an open-ended, non specific manner. It's odious and pathetic. The book is full of corroboration. That Reviewer intentionally ignores it because they simply want to cast aspersions, for some sad reason. It's easy to just toss this bullshit out there, without explanation. Try backing it up. What info do you think was not corroborated, that should have been? Because, if you asked the question, but based on nothing, then again, what's your agenda?
With a first-time author, I lay some blame on the publisher.
I suspect That Reviewer is a zero time author. But by all means, keep lecturing the publisher.
If the book is a collection of quotes, a description of process and how the material is cited needs to be laid out in the preface.
No honest person would call the book a "collection of quotes." A liar would, if they intended to misrepresent the book, in order to minimize it.
As for the "process and how the material is cited," many if not most of the quotes from secondary sources have the sources cited right there within the text, for example: "Rick told Rock Scene," "Tom told Gretsch News," etc. Yes, for some of the quotes I chose not do this, based on how the writing flowed, but every source is cited in the Endnotes, which is how books work. That Reviewer wants to hold my book to different standards, their invented standards, which they spelled out in the first draft of their review. Then they edited their review, but some of the elements of their conspiracy theory that I was trying to trick people by not using footnotes (even though the bulk of the sources are cited right there in the text) still remains.
But the publisher should also expect more of someone trying to be a biographer or historian.
Once again, That Reviewer knows better than the publisher. I guess undermining the publisher's credibility is essential to their petty agenda, because in reality, the book was deemed worthy of publishing, and That Reviewer seems desperate to avoid giving the author credit for anything. For example, note the word "trying." Another veiled insult. That Reviewer has a superiority complex.
At 380 pages it needs guidance and an editing pen something fierce.
The book was exhaustively edited. But at least this is an opinion, and not an outright lie or insult. Oh, wait: I need "guidance." More condescension from the zero time author.
Why am I being such a battle axe?
I could speculate as to That Reviewer's motives, but I won't sink to their level. Still, it's interesting to note that they twice betray a self-awareness as to how they are behaving, by calling themselves "That Reviewer" and a "battle axe." They know, they just don't care.
Because America’s greatest rock ‘n’ roll band deserves better.
In your opinion, they deserve better. I agree that they are America’s greatest rock ‘n’ roll band.
They’ve given us insanely great records and 50 years of touring. Tough, tireless and brilliant. This book simply doesn’t meet the bar.
Again: in your opinion. But after reading this "review," you lack credibility. Your insinuations and misrepresentations seem purposeful. Your review simply doesn't meet the bar. Zero substance. At least tell the truth.
I chose a unique format for my book, after much deliberation. That Reviewer doesn't like it, for whatever reason. That's fine. I don't care if they like it. But here's the thing: the quotes (which do not make up the entire book, far from it, and yet That Reviewer pretends they do) are well-integrated, and in context. The book tells a story and highlights themes. There are many examples of corroboration. So why does That Reviewer claim the opposite?
There is no actual basis for questioning my competence or credibility, at least not presented within the "review." What That Reviewer actually does is: lie about the book, make insinuations, cast aspersions. What they never do is: make a single reference to anything specific.
I think it's sad that this person can't appreciate, or at the very least respect, on any level, my efforts. But this is the kind of thing that we all know we will unfortunately be confronted with, when we put ourselves out there. Work and slave, sometimes succeed. Then here comes the internet to let you know you suck. Because there's always someone.
CHERYL BOTCHICK, YOU'RE A PETTY LIAR.
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
