By Jared Chausow
By Katie Toth
By Elizabeth Flock
By Albert Samaha
By Anna Merlan
By Jon Campbell
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
"My name is Rachel Brown and I am one of the characters in the book," begins the review posted by email@example.com. "I felt that this book definately [sic] portrayed cheerleading in a true style. However, there were statements in the book that have hurt many people and have caused a lot of controversy. For instance, our dance team was portrayed as sluts who can't dance. THIS IS NOT TRUE!" (4 out of 5 stars)
Within two weeks, the Amazon.com "Customer Comment" section, where Brown posted, was swamped with responses. Waves of fellow cheerleaders, students, and friends joined her in defending their school and their hometown from James McElroy's We've Got Spirit: The Life and Times of America's Greatest Cheerleading Team. Released in February, the book exhaustively tracks a year in the life of the girls and coaches at Greenup County High School in Kentucky as the squad makes its way toward the 1998 National Cheerleading championship. "The book has put our entire town into an uproar," wrote one anonymous, "very angry" ex-cheerleader, "and caused many friendships to fail." (2 stars) Rachel Wills, another of the five squad members profiled in the book, lashed out: "James McElroy, thanks for making me sound like I am a hideous person to look at!!!" (3 stars)
But several days later, all these responses along with dozens of other posts (some of which even praised the book) were deleted from the site. "One day I looked and there were 63 and the next day there were 17," says Lori Lovell, an ex GCHS cheerleader whose review was eliminated. "At the time I didn't think about it they had so many that they had to get rid of some. Some were kind of tasteless and very personal. But I couldn't figure out how they picked what posts to delete." The raucous public conversation about the book, from detailed analyses to shout-outs to the "Shawnda Squad of '97," simply vanished.
"The purpose of the 'Reader Reviews' is to help people find the right book," says Bill Curry, spokesperson for Amazon.com. "If our policies are not being followed, we will take the posts down." Amazon.com's guidelines, which appear whenever someone tries to create a reader review, prohibit "profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks" and "comments focusing solely on the author." Curry says that of the site's 2.4 million customer reviews, "99 out of 100 times they're fine and one time it's 'God' reviewing the Bible." The company employs people to audit and respond to complaints, says Curry. But he won't reveal how exactly Amazon.com screens out posts. "It's like the old saying that the more you talk airport security, the less secure it is," he says. "We don't want to provide a road map for getting around that."
But people are constantly getting around it and the evidence is all over Amazon.com. For weeks now, the reviews of books by Family Circus cartoonist Bill Keane have been absurd and over-the-top, and despite its best efforts, Amazon.com can't seem to stem the tide. "While I agree that Daddy's Cap Is on Backwards has its moments of drug-inspired poetry, frankly I was disappointed that Keane appears to have abandoned the thematic thread that ran through earlier classics including . . . the quintessential Don't Bother Mommy When She's Drinking," one reader writes. The distinction between posts by "rectal-viet-cong@ fuck-the- skull-of- jesus.mit.edu" on Keane's book and legit readers (assuming there are some) is obvious. But the difficulty for Amazon is much more subtle. Reviews for Monica's Story never mention the book and just drift into discursive Clinton commentary, which presumably violates Amazon's code. A review for Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus! Trilogy lauds the book, "At least it gave me something to focus on during sex." At what point does a review become irresponsible?
The deleted, PG-rated posts for We've Got Spirit, on the other hand, were nothing if not earnest, concerned with the book's alleged factual inaccuracies ostensibly what any potential purchaser would be curious to know. Amazon does not, as a policy, edit reviews to remove ad hominem attacks. "It's easier to take them down they're either on or they're off," says Curry.
Author McElroy says that, as a result of the filtering, his book's star rating "went way up." Amazon.com "clearly kept the more positive reviews," he says. "It could be that the negative ones were more slanderous and they had to remove them. It also might be that they want to sell more books."
Curry rejects that claim, but the selling has been hard to avoid on Amazon. Back in February, The New York Times broke the story of Amazon's "cooperative advertising allowances," which let big publishers buy their way into the "New and Notable" and "Destined for Greatness" sections with no acknowledgment made on the site. The next day, Amazon announced they would begin disclosing which placements were paid for and which were not. The company, which employs editors and freelance writers, publishes its own reviews, and Curry testifies that some are in fact negative (he cites Michael Lind's The Alamo). "The purpose of the reviews is not to be snobbish about what constitutes a good book or a bad book because every book has merit to someone," he says. Which often implies kinder criticism. "My editor told me that getting reviewed by Amazon is a good thing," says McElroy. "They don't review everything."